From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 1 00:29:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7VERio00935 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 00:27:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7VERWt00924 for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 00:27:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d153.iae.nl [212.61.3.153]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id B64BA20F18 for ; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 16:27:27 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <006701c01357$d5f59d60$99033dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 16:27:33 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Bower" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 7:52 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A > > > 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 No, I do not agree; I want just "without thought". In the Netherlands we learnt that the interpretation is: no change after thinking. Time is expedient for thinking but in the case of the waitress the thinking has nothing to do with bridge! The director can decide when looking at the hand: is 3S likely or 3NT. 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 1 00:29:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7VERiS00934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 00:27:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7VERUt00922 for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 00:27:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d153.iae.nl [212.61.3.153]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 5E62420F06 for ; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 16:27:25 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <006501c01357$d48d81e0$99033dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 15:37:21 +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: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 11:12 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A > > > > 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 Speaking about Law Books there is a difference between Golf and Bridge. Only a certificated golf player is allowed to play golf. In order to gain that certificate she/he has to pass an examination in knowledge of the Laws. Part of the Laws is etiquette and as I remember it well these Laws are written in the first part of the book. Do we need certificated bridge players? Ben ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 1 00:29:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7VERjx00936 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 00:27:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7VERVt00923 for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 00:27:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d153.iae.nl [212.61.3.153]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 8DDCD20F07 for ; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 16:27:26 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <006601c01357$d5462380$99033dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <3yvcNwAyEsk5Ew40@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <002901c00c88$1c2bec20$0b00000a@mike> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 15:55:54 +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 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: "Mike Dodson" To: Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 12:27 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A > 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. In the Netherlands bidding boxes are introduced and used from the fourth lesson onwards of a bridge course. The problems with bidding boxes arising at clubs and tournements is a consequence of sloppy practice. 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 1 01:13:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7VFDHO00988 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 01:13:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xion.spase.nl (router.spase.nl [213.53.246.249]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7VFDBt00984 for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 01:13:12 +1000 (EST) Received: by xion.spase.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 17:12:35 +0200 Message-ID: From: Martin Sinot To: bridge-laws Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 17:12:28 +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 Ben Schelen wrote: >No, I do not agree; I want just "without thought". >In the Netherlands we learnt that the interpretation is: no change after >thinking. Time is expedient for thinking but in the case of the waitress the >thinking has nothing to do with bridge! The director can decide when looking >at the hand: is 3S likely or 3NT. To illustrate this, maybe an example (taken from our own Duch forum): South has: Ax xxxx KQJxx Kx Case 1: South wants to open 1D, but pulls 1H -- "Waiter, two coffee please". After looking back after some time, West already passed. Director! Case 2 (as it was presented on our forum): East opens 1D. South pulls 1D, then in one quick motion changes it to 1H. Director! Now which law do you apply? If you say "without pause", then clearly in case 1 L25B should be applied and in case 2 L25A. Obviously it should be exactly the other way around - the South in case 2 clearly wanted to open 1D (no, they didn't play canape). "Without thought" at least reflects the current interpretation that mechanical errors can be corrected, but changes of mind not. -- 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 Fri Sep 1 03:16:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7VHFiC01074 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 03:15:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7VHFet01070 for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 03:15:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot28.domain6.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ka896620 for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 03:11:07 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-006-p-217-213.tmns.net.au ([203.54.217.213]) by mail6.bigpond.com (Claudes-Speedi-MailRouter V2.9b 11/3521124); 01 Sep 2000 03:11:06 Message-ID: <007f01c01312$6278d900$d5d936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 16:12:04 +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 Ben Schelen wrote: (my apologies to Ben for accidentally sending this post to him earlier) >Speaking about Law Books there is a difference between >Golf and Bridge. Only a certificated golf player is allowed >to play golf. In order to gain that certificate she/he has to >pass an examination in knowledge of the Laws. Part of >the Laws is etiquette and as I remember it well these Laws >are written in the first part of the book. > >Do we need certificated bridge players? I'm allowed to play golf, and I'm not certificated. I'm one of those hackers who play occasionally at clubs which permit visitors to play, e.g public golf courses. If we have "certificated bridge players" (CBPs) who have to pass a basic Rules test, I think that it should not apply at club level, but perhaps at Red Master Point level, i.e. only CBPs can earn Red Points, and as you need so many Red Points to become a Life Master, this would mean that any Life Master must have done the test. Rather neat really. This makes some sense. After all, to let me into a "Red Point" golf event would be inappropriate. Of course my comments do not apply to NBOs who don't award Red Master Points. Peter Gill Australia. PS: If golf used bridge's rules, would an AC have had to hear the case of Tiger's ball in the rough of the last playoff hole of the recent US PGA, where endless video replays strongly suggest that human intervention assisted Tiger? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 1 05:58:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7VJvGT01137 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 05:57:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7VJv9t01133 for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 05:57:10 +1000 (EST) Received: by esebh02nok with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) id ; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 22:57:05 +0300 Message-ID: From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] A question about Tanzania Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 22:57:04 +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 > 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 I got it. The Tanzanian team didn't show at play time. The Polish team was offered a choice: either 18VPs or to play the match in the evening. They decided to play. 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 Sep 1 06:03:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7VK3RD01153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 06:03:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail1.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.192]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7VK3Kt01149 for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 06:03:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-026.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.218]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA85534 for ; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 21:03:10 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <003a01c01387$be5db9a0$da307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Is 1C natural? Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 21:12:06 +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 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: BLML Date: 30 August 2000 11:18 Subject: [BLML] Is 1C 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 >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Sorry, that argument is not good enough. You can pass a Multi 2D opener: >that does not make the Multi natural. > >-- >David Stevenson Fair enough - let me re-phrase - the 1C opener shows a willingness to play in 1C - hence not conventional. (The Multi 2D opener doesn't expect to be left in 2D, the 1C opener is aware that there is a significant chance that he will be left there). Regards, Fearghal. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 1 10:19:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e810It301285 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 10:18:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e810Iot01281 for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 10:18:50 +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 KAA26218 for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 10:14:45 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 01 Sep 2000 11:15:16 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Is 1C natural? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 11:17:59 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 01/09/2000 11:12:25 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: "Fair enough - let me re-phrase - the 1C opener shows a willingness to play in 1C - hence not conventional. (The Multi 2D opener doesn't expect to be left in 2D, the 1C opener is aware that there is a significant chance that he will be left there)." In many Australian partnerships a 2H opening shows a weak hand with 5 hearts and 5 cards in an unspecified second suit. Since there is a "significant chance" that the 2H opener will play there, by Fearghal's definition such a 2H call is not conventional. But IMHO, the agreement about the unspecified second suit is "a meaning other than willingness to play", rendering such 2H openings conventional. Likewise, if there is a possibility that a 1C opening shows a balanced hand with two clubs, that also is "a meaning other ..." Is an opening bid (promising at least three cards) which may be canape conventional? I recall that a pair in the winning German team in a Rosenblum Cup a decade ago frequently opened three card majors. 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 Sep 1 12:39:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e812cm201344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 12:38:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e812cht01340 for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 12:38:43 +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 MAA07591 for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 12:34:38 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 01 Sep 2000 13:35:10 +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 2000090113321831:2281 ; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 13:32:18 +1000 Received: by immcbrn1.immi.gov.au(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.3 (733.2 10-16-1998)) id 4A25694D.0013FADD ; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 13:38:14 +1000 X-Lotus-FromDomain: IMMI To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-ID: <4A25694D.0013FA85.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 13:37:50 +1000 Subject: Re: [BLML] Is 1C natural? Mime-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 01/09/2000 01:32:18 PM, Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 01/09/2000 01:32:19 PM, Serialize complete at 01/09/2000 01:32:19 PM Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower wrote: "By his, and anyone else's definition, 2H is *natural*. That is NOT the same thing as *not conventional*..." But Peter Gill previously revealed: "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)" 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 Sep 1 16:00:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e815xUh01421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 15:59:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from trex.uia.net (trex.uia.net [207.67.175.26]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e815xOt01417 for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 15:59:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from uia.net (166.uia.palm.cyberg8t.com [207.67.173.166]) by trex.uia.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA09240; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 22:59:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <39AF4629.38DCBC91@uia.net> Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 23:01:13 -0700 From: Irv Kostal X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A References: <007f01c01312$6278d900$d5d936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I am reminded of a suggestion, made many years ago, when we became particularly tired of one person's inaccurate post-mortems. We thought it would be a good idea to create a test, and only folks who passed the test would be allowed to conduct post-mortems. Of course, the ACLU (for our non-american friends, an organization that promotes and defends civil liberties here in the USA) got involved and started complaining about freedom of speech issues. The result was, we decided it would be appropriate that folks who either hadn't taken the test or had failed it be required to say "ALERT! I am about to make an uncertified post-mortem." before they started, so we'd have a chance to leave the table. Strangely, the suggestion did not elicit much strong support, but I still don't know why not. :)))))) Irv Peter Gill wrote: > Ben Schelen wrote: > (my apologies to Ben for accidentally sending this post to him earlier) > >Speaking about Law Books there is a difference between > >Golf and Bridge. Only a certificated golf player is allowed > >to play golf. In order to gain that certificate she/he has to > >pass an examination in knowledge of the Laws. Part of > >the Laws is etiquette and as I remember it well these Laws > >are written in the first part of the book. > > > >Do we need certificated bridge players? > > I'm allowed to play golf, and I'm not certificated. I'm one of those > hackers who play occasionally at clubs which permit visitors to > play, e.g public golf courses. > > If we have "certificated bridge players" (CBPs) who have to pass > a basic Rules test, I think that it should not apply at club level, but > perhaps at Red Master Point level, i.e. only CBPs can earn Red > Points, and as you need so many Red Points to become a Life > Master, this would mean that any Life Master must have done > the test. Rather neat really. > > This makes some sense. After all, to let me into > a "Red Point" golf event would be inappropriate. > > Of course my comments do not apply to NBOs who don't > award Red Master Points. > > Peter Gill > Australia. > PS: If golf used bridge's rules, would an AC have had to > hear the case of Tiger's ball in the rough of the last playoff > hole of the recent US PGA, where endless video replays > strongly suggest that human intervention assisted Tiger? > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Sep 1 16:44:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e816hxA01535 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 16:43:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e816hqt01531 for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 16:43:53 +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 IAA09398; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 08:43:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by kantoor.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA03489; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 08:43:44 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: kantoor.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 08:43:44 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] A question about Tanzania 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, 31 Aug 2000 Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com wrote: > > 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? > I got it. The Tanzanian team didn't show at play time. > The Polish team was offered a choice: either 18VPs or > to play the match in the evening. They decided to play. Good choice: Poland 136 - Tanzania 17 = 25 - 0. 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 Fri Sep 1 19:44:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e819hin01608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 19:43:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e819hbt01604 for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 19:43:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.0.ap (guppy)) id LAA05231; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 11:42:08 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id LAA03756; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 11:43:13 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000901115257.008eca40@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 11:52:57 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] Card played or not Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear blmlists, An interesting case came on the scene yesterday night. I was unable to find the right article in TFLB. Please help me. South plays a heart contract. After several tricks have been played, the remaining spades are : West North East South AQ10 Jxxx x x East plays the remaining spade. South exclaims : 'a spade !' before he even played from his hand. Now West quickly plays spade 10 and demands that a small spade be played from the table, since 'a spade' means a small one (L 46 B2). As a director, how would you rule ? a) If you thought South really played a small spade out of rotation from the table b) If you thought 'a spade !' was an exclamation of surprise because East shouldn't have a spade to lead at that point or because it was a bad play And, above all, which law would you apply ? Thank you for your help. 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 Fri Sep 1 19:57:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e819vGd01626 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 19:57:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e819v9t01622 for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 19:57:10 +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 LAA26643; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 11:57:45 +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 LAA11583; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 11:56:46 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000901120629.00799510@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 12:06:29 +0200 To: "Chris Pisarra" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastrict Appeal #3 In-Reply-To: <09b801c012a7$bbc40cc0$3517173f@uymfdlvk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:28 30/08/00 -0700, you 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 > I'm certainly baffled. Chris AG : this is what I think the AC did, although they didn't mention it explicitlty. 1) The bidding is clearly tainted with false information 2) West should be allowed to lead a small club (the benefit of the boubt goes entirely to his side) 3) They estimated the probability of the slam making after the small club lead to about 2/3, weighing it in favor to the innocent side 4) They awarded 2/3 of the score for 6D= and 1/3 of the score for 6D-1. You might contest the weighing (it should have been 2/3 the other way), but the ruling isn't that absurd. Regards, 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 Fri Sep 1 19:58:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e819w2S01638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 19:58:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e819vut01634 for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 19:57:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13Una4-000Axv-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 09:57:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 10:56:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: [BLML] Lightner strikes MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Board from Round 1 of Crockford's Cup (English Bridge Union KO teams competition) Board 11 Dealer S Love all 10 AKJ872 AK8 K53 KQ72 986543 9653 VOID VOID 9764 109872 QJ4 AJ Q104 QJ10532 A6 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1D PASS 2H PASS 4C* PASS 4D* PASS 4S* PASS 7H PASS PASS DOUBLE PASS PASS PASS North complains at the end of the hand that the Lightner double was not alerted - if it had been he would have "converted to 7NT" - "because it was not alerted, he could rely upon it not being Lightner" East West are a regular partnership. West says he took his partner's double to mean either "lead a Diamond and this is going off" or "it's going off regardless" The standard is quite reasonable - East West are Life Masters and although North South are not known to me they are to be regarded as similar playing standard in a national competition. How do you rule? -- michael amos -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 1 21:52:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e81BoCV01682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 21:50:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e81Bo6t01678 for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 21:50:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.8.194]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000901115000.JXOV16423.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 12:50:00 +0100 Message-ID: <001701c0140b$20e2bca0$c208ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne.jones1" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Lightner strikes Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 12:52:33 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "michael amos" To: Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 10:56 AM Subject: [BLML] Lightner strikes > Board from Round 1 of Crockford's Cup (English Bridge Union KO teams > competition) > > Board 11 Dealer S Love all > > 10 > AKJ872 > AK8 > K53 > > KQ72 986543 > 9653 VOID > VOID 9764 > 109872 QJ4 > > AJ > Q104 > QJ10532 > A6 > > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1D > PASS 2H PASS 4C* > PASS 4D* PASS 4S* > PASS 7H PASS PASS > DOUBLE PASS PASS PASS > > > North complains at the end of the hand that the Lightner double was not > alerted - if it had been he would have "converted to 7NT" - "because it > was not alerted, he could rely upon it not being Lightner" > > East West are a regular partnership. West says he took his partner's > double to mean either "lead a Diamond and this is going off" or "it's > going off regardless" > > The standard is quite reasonable - East West are Life Masters and > although North South are not known to me they are to be regarded as > similar playing standard in a national competition. > > How do you rule? > I rule that the result stands. I fine E/W 3imps for a failure to alert. I read OB 5.5.1 to the N/S players and inform them of their right to appeal. OB 5.5.1 If you claim to have been damaged because your opponents failed to alert a call, and it is judged that you were aware of its likely meaning, you would fail in your claim if you had had the opportunity to ask without putting your side's interests at risk. Anne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 1 23:14:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e81DE0Z01793 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 23:14:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e81DDut01789 for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 23:13:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.104.123]) by mta5-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20000901131418.DTQR961729.mta5-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 01:14:18 +1200 Message-ID: <00fa01c01415$e05f8900$7b6860cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <003a01c01387$be5db9a0$da307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is 1C natural? Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 01:08:56 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" > > > Fair enough - let me re-phrase - the 1C opener shows a willingness to play > in 1C - hence not conventional. > (The Multi 2D opener doesn't expect to be left in 2D, the 1C opener is aware > that there is a significant chance that he will be left there). > It seems to me that: "... willing to play ..." and "... knowing I might be left there ... " are two quite different things. 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 Sat Sep 2 00:04:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e81E4aj01820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 00:04:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e81E4Ut01816 for ; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 00:04:31 +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 KAA20534; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 10:04:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA127437059; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 10:04:20 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 10:01:56 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: RE: [BLML] Card played or not Mime-Version: 1.0 From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA To: agot@ulb.ac.be, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline ;Creation-Date="Fri, 1 Sep 2000 10:01:55 -0400" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id e81E4Xt01817 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain wrote: ______________________________________________________________________ Objet : [BLML] Card played or not South plays a heart contract. After several tricks have been played, the remaining spades are : West North East South AQ10 Jxxx x x East plays the remaining spade. South exclaims : 'a spade !' before he even played from his hand. Now West quickly plays spade 10 and demands that a small spade be played from the table, since 'a spade' means a small one (L 46 B2). As a director, how would you rule ? a) If you thought South really played a small spade out of rotation from the table b) If you thought 'a spade !' was an exclamation of surprise because East shouldn't have a spade to lead at that point or because it was a bad play And, above all, which law would you apply ? Thank you for your help. Alain. ________________________________________________________________________ ____ Indeed...there is no "Premature lead or Play by Declarer" law (Law 57.5...). You first have to rule on facts (play out of turn or surprise) according to Laws 84 and 85. If a) (POOT by declarer) I should rule a small S was played (Law 45B) and accepted by W when playing the 10. The illegal play stands and play continue without penalty. I would use Law 60: Play after en Illegal Play to rule like this. I know it is not exactly that but did not find anything better... If b) (exclamation of surprise) No card was played from dummy. I should allow W to retract the card he has played without penalty, trying to use Law 47E2 (Change of play based on misinformation). The best I found... 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 Sat Sep 2 00:40:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e81EePt01844 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 00:40:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e81EeIt01840 for ; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 00:40:19 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e81EeMB01875 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 10:40:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200009011440.e81EeMB01875@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Lightner strikes To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 10:40:21 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <001701c0140b$20e2bca0$c208ff3e@vnmvhhid> from "anne.jones1" at Sep 01, 2000 12:52:33 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 anne.jones1 writes: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "michael amos" > To: > Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 10:56 AM > Subject: [BLML] Lightner strikes > > > > Board from Round 1 of Crockford's Cup (English Bridge Union KO teams > > competition) > > > > Board 11 Dealer S Love all > > > > 10 > > AKJ872 > > AK8 > > K53 > > > > KQ72 986543 > > 9653 VOID > > VOID 9764 > > 109872 QJ4 > > > > AJ > > Q104 > > QJ10532 > > A6 > > > > > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > 1D > > PASS 2H PASS 4C* > > PASS 4D* PASS 4S* > > PASS 7H PASS PASS > > DOUBLE PASS PASS PASS > > > > > > North complains at the end of the hand that the Lightner double was not > > alerted - if it had been he would have "converted to 7NT" - "because it > > was not alerted, he could rely upon it not being Lightner" > > > > East West are a regular partnership. West says he took his partner's > > double to mean either "lead a Diamond and this is going off" or "it's > > going off regardless" > > > > The standard is quite reasonable - East West are Life Masters and > > although North South are not known to me they are to be regarded as > > similar playing standard in a national competition. > > > > How do you rule? > > > I rule that the result stands. I fine E/W 3imps for a failure to alert. Is Lightner *really* alertable in the EBU? I mean does it say so in black and white? If so, do players know this? A similar case came up at Albuquerque (Appeals Report 25) The director ruled (quoting from the report) all bridge players used this double so it was not neccessary to alert it. Result stood. A strong committee (Edgar Kaplan, Jens Auken, Bobby Goldman, Tony Sowter) made a strongly worded ruling accusing the appealing side of trying a double shot. They kept the deposit. After the hearing Bill Schoder informed the committee that other committees had required the Alert. The committee felt (quoting now) alerting a slam double as a conventional action is both unneccessary and harmful. (Again quoting) Acting as WBF President, Wolff reformed the committee as a Tournament Committee and moved that a Lightener Double specifically should be added to the list of un-alertable conventions. The committee agreed and the Conditions of Contest were so ammended. > I read OB 5.5.1 to the N/S players and inform them of their right to appeal. > OB 5.5.1 > If you claim to have been damaged because your opponents failed to alert a > call, and it is judged that you were aware of its likely meaning, you would > fail in your claim if you had had the opportunity to ask without putting > your side's interests at risk. > Anne -- RNJ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 2 00:41:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e81EfdB01866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 00:41:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e81EfUt01859 for ; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 00:41:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d398.iae.nl [212.61.5.144]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id D528120F59 for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 16:41:20 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <005301c01422$f08d2780$90053dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <3.0.6.32.20000901115257.008eca40@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Card played or not Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 16:37:52 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "alain gottcheiner" To: Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 11:52 AM Subject: [BLML] Card played or not > Dear blmlists, > > An interesting case came on the scene yesterday night. I was unable to find > the right article in TFLB. Please help me. > > South plays a heart contract. After several tricks have been played, the > remaining spades are : > > West North East South > > AQ10 Jxxx x x > > East plays the remaining spade. > South exclaims : 'a spade !' before he even played from his hand. > > Now West quickly plays spade 10 and demands that a small spade be played > from the table, since 'a spade' means a small one (L 46 B2). > > As a director, how would you rule ? > > a) If you thought South really played a small spade out of rotation from > the table > b) If you thought 'a spade !' was an exclamation of surprise because East > shouldn't have a spade to lead at that point or because it was a bad play > > And, above all, which law would you apply ? > > Thank you for your help. > > Alain. Law 45C2 says that declarer must play a card from his hand etc. Law 45C4 says a card must be played if a player names etc. So declarer has two possibilities. In the mentioned case the table officer has to find out what the meaning is of declarers exclamation. But I have the intention to decide that declarer announced to play a spade from his hand. West ( a sly customer ) has played the ten and it is allowed to play the Jack in dummy. Ben ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 2 00:41:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e81Efhu01867 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 00:41:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e81EfUt01858 for ; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 00:41:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d398.iae.nl [212.61.5.144]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 01BFA20F3A for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 16:41:18 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <005201c01422$eea7ecc0$90053dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <006701c01311$d4d0cf40$d5d936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A (golf) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 15:44:57 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Gill" To: "Ben Schelen" Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 8:08 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A > Ben Schelen wrote: > >Speaking about Law Books there is a difference between > >Golf and Bridge. Only a certificated golf player is allowed > >to play golf. In order to gain that certificate she/he has to > >pass an examination in knowledge of the Laws. Part of > >the Laws is etiquette and as I remember it well these Laws > >are written in the first part of the book. > > > >Do we need certificated bridge players? > > > I'm allowed to play golf, and I'm not certificated. I'm one of those > hackers who play occasionally at clubs which permit visitors to > play, e.g public golf courses. > > If we have "certificated bridge players" (CBPs) who have to pass > a basic Rules test, I think that it should not apply at club level, but > perhaps at Red Master Point level, i.e. only CBPs can earn Red > Points, and as you need so many Red Points to become a Life > Master, this would mean that any Life Master must have done > the test. Rather neat really. > > This makes some sense. After all, to let me into > a "Red Point" golf event would be inappropriate. > > Of course my comments do not apply to NBOs who don't > award Red Master Points. > > Peter Gill > Australia. > PS: If golf used bridge's rules, would an AC have had to > hear the case of Tiger's ball in the rough of the last playoff > hole of the recent US PGA, where endless video replays > strongly suggest that human intervention assisted Tiger? Not in case Tiger would refuse the assist! He also could miss the ball or something like that. Can you find a relation with BL16B and BL72A2? Ben -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 2 01:02:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e81F2Xv01892 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 01:02:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e81F2Rt01888 for ; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 01:02:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id LAA00747 for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 11:02:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA02197 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 11:02:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 11:02:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200009011502.LAA02197@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Card played or not X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: alain gottcheiner > As a director, how would you rule ? > > a) If you thought South really played a small spade out of rotation from > the table You have almost answered your own question. L46B2 tells us that "spade" means the lowest one, and L45C4a tells us that it must be played _unless_ the designation was inadvertent _and_ it was changed without pause for thought. The second condition is unlikely to be met if West has played a card in the interim, but if it was met, West gets to change his play without penalty under L45C4b. > b) If you thought 'a spade !' was an exclamation of surprise because East > shouldn't have a spade to lead at that point or because it was a bad play In this case, no card has been played from dummy, and you have a further decision to make. If you believe South's exclamation was so clearly not a play from dummy that West ought to have realized it, then West's S-T is played (out of turn), and South can play whatever he likes both from his own hand and from dummy. This seems quite a likely ruling. Why should West be expecting declarer to play from dummy before playing from his hand? And even if he thinks that is what declarer has done, he should ask declarer to play from hand before playing a card himself. West's "quick" play of S-T and "demand" that declarer play low from dummy suggest that he knows perfectly well what has happened. If you believe a reasonable person in the West seat could have interpreted South's exclamation as a play from dummy, then you could allow West to withdraw his S-T without penalty under L47D. Play continues in rotation, starting with South. However, you could also rule that West's S-T must be played because it was out of turn, South not yet having played from his own hand even if he has seemingly played from dummy. I would favor the first ruling myself. South has caused the problem by his exclamation, and he shouldn't benefit from the extraneous action (L74B2). No matter what your ruling, you should caution South about gratuitous comments (L74B2). A PP may be in order, probably a warning for a first offense. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 2 01:15:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e81FEdk01910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 01:14:39 +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 e81FEXt01906 for ; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 01:14:34 +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 LAA08154 for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 11:14:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA02219 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 11:14:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 11:14:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200009011514.LAA02219@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Card played or not X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > If you believe South's exclamation was so clearly not a play from dummy > that West ought to have realized it, ... > No matter what your ruling, you should caution South about gratuitous > comments (L74B2). A PP may be in order, probably a warning for a > first offense. I should have added that if you believe West was just being a BL and knew perfectly well what was happening, you can read him L9B1a, L10A, L72A1, and L72A6 and give him a PP too. I'm somewhat disinclined to make this one a warning. A normal player in the West seat, thinking declarer has played out of turn from dummy, asks what is going on. He may eventually call the TD, or he may even call the TD without asking, but he doesn't make his own ruling that the low spade from dummy must be played. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 2 01:27:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e81FRaA01925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 01:27:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e81FRTt01921 for ; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 01:27:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id LAA15816; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 11:27:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA02240; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 11:27:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 11:27:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200009011527.LAA02240@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] ACBL policy on agreements after opponents' irregularity X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Now I have it from Gary Blaiss: the policy on the web site is indeed obsolete. The new policy is in the "Tech Files." I don't have personal access to those, but Gary quotes the policy as: "A pair may not change their conventional agreements contingent upon an opponent's irregularity. Natural methods may be altered if they are otherwise permitted." As we can see, the above policy needs some interpretation. Gary is going to try to clarify once the members of the C&C Committee return from Maastricht. He still hopes to write a Bulletin article once that is done, but as we can all imagine, this hasn't been his highest priority! Incidentally, the first answer I got from 'rulings@acbl.org' was that the policy on the web site was still in force. I appreciate that the person who initially answered took the trouble to recheck with Gary and find out the correct information. The policy change occurred in the spring of 1998. I'll let the list know if I hear more from Gary or other official sources. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 2 05:16:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e81JFTC02087 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 05:15:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.211.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e81JFKt02083 for ; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 05:15:22 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 75234 invoked for bounce); 1 Sep 2000 19:15:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.57.118) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 1 Sep 2000 19:15:15 -0000 Message-ID: <035501c01449$310ede40$1e3a1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "BLML" References: <382060057.967718099815.JavaMail.root@web595-ec.mail.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastrict Appeal #3 Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 21:14:43 +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 "Herman De Wael" wrote: >> From: "Thomas Dehn" > >> "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". > > Oh no !! Oh yes. The AC might create an average between 6D= and 6D-1 scores, but 12C3 does not give you the right to assign any score you just "feel" is equity 12c3 is worded strangely, anyway, "may *vary* an assigned adjusted score in order to do equity."? Where is the AAS the AC did "vary"? ;-) (the director did not assign an AAS) And why did I never notice this poor wording before? ;-)) >> > 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. > > This is simply 12C3. I don't think so. > We found the Israeli to be unlikely to > find the brilliant lead, and thought > it would be one in five or six or something. > That translates into the 4 > IMPs we awarded. No, it doesn't. Declarer can still prevail on a C lead even if he misguesses and ruffs it. Thats the reason why such random adjustments are always poor rulings: the AC does not work out the details properly. > Maybe I should > have held out for the official inclusion of > the 1 in six/five, but we really did not settle on that. The appeal's write-up clearly states that the AC was too lazy to work out the details: "The Committee did not want to quantify this chance". Thats problem 1 with this decision. Problem 2 is the missing PP against Chemla for a) MI in a standard situation and b) not alerting his own 3NT (relay), and c) not explaining the bidding before the opening lead, thus correcting his failure to alert, all in one board. Thomas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 2 08:14:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e81MEGA02155 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 08:14:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e81MEBt02151 for ; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 08:14:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.104.173]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20000901221524.GBXU1068144.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 10:15:24 +1200 Message-ID: <022201c01461$5b6060c0$7b6860cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "BLML" References: <382060057.967718099815.JavaMail.root@web595-ec.mail.com> <035501c01449$310ede40$1e3a1dc2@rabbit> Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastrict Appeal #3 Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 08:01:47 +1200 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 From: "Thomas Dehn" > > Oh yes. The AC might create an average between > 6D= and 6D-1 scores, but 12C3 does not give > you the right to assign any score you just > "feel" is equity > 12c3 is worded strangely, anyway, > "may *vary* an assigned adjusted score in order to do equity."? > Where is the AAS the AC did "vary"? ;-) > (the director did not assign an AAS) > And why did I never notice this poor wording before? ;-)) > But L12C2 "...and may be assigned either in matchpoints or by altering the total-point score prior to matchpointing." Not sure if this includes IMPs ("International *Match-Points*") 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 Sat Sep 2 08:44:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e81Mieh02174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 08:44:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alpha.netvision.net.il (alpha.netvision.net.il [194.90.1.13]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e81MiYt02170 for ; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 08:44:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from eitan (RAS1-p109.nt.netvision.net.il [212.143.220.111]) by alpha.netvision.net.il (8.9.3/8.8.6) with SMTP id BAA05451 for ; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 01:44:27 +0300 (IDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20000902015213.008a8680@netvision.net.il> X-Sender: moranl@netvision.net.il X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 01:52:13 +0300 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Eitan Levy Subject: Re: [BLML] Card played or not In-Reply-To: <200009011502.LAA02197@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 11:02 01/09/2000 -0400, you wrote: >> From: alain gottcheiner >> As a director, how would you rule ? >> >> a) If you thought South really played a small spade out of rotation from >> the table > >You have almost answered your own question. L46B2 tells us that >"spade" means the lowest one, and L45C4a tells us that it must be >played _unless_ the designation was inadvertent _and_ it was changed >without pause for thought. The second condition is unlikely to be met >if West has played a card in the interim, but if it was met, West >gets to change his play without penalty under L45C4b. > It may not be too relevant in this case, but L45C4a may not have to be applied to an incomplete call of a card. L46B states in effect that "spade" means the lowest card __except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible__. If the TD determines that declarer's different intention is incontrovertible, then pausing or not pausing is not relevant. >> b) If you thought 'a spade !' was an exclamation of surprise because East >> shouldn't have a spade to lead at that point or because it was a bad play > >In this case, no card has been played from dummy, and you have a >further decision to make. > >If you believe South's exclamation was so clearly not a play from dummy >that West ought to have realized it, then West's S-T is played (out of >turn), and South can play whatever he likes both from his own hand and >from dummy. This seems quite a likely ruling. Why should West be >expecting declarer to play from dummy before playing from his hand? >And even if he thinks that is what declarer has done, he should ask >declarer to play from hand before playing a card himself. West's >"quick" play of S-T and "demand" that declarer play low from dummy >suggest that he knows perfectly well what has happened. > >If you believe a reasonable person in the West seat could have >interpreted South's exclamation as a play from dummy, then you could >allow West to withdraw his S-T without penalty under L47D. Play >continues in rotation, starting with South. However, you could also >rule that West's S-T must be played because it was out of turn, South >not yet having played from his own hand even if he has seemingly >played from dummy. I would favor the first ruling myself. South has >caused the problem by his exclamation, and he shouldn't benefit from >the extraneous action (L74B2). > >No matter what your ruling, you should caution South about gratuitous >comments (L74B2). A PP may be in order, probably a warning for a >first offense. >-- > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 2 09:46:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e81NkPn02207 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 09:46:25 +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-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 e81NkIt02203 for ; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 09:46:19 +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 13V0Vh-000IFw-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 23:46:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 00:43:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Lightner strikes 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 , michael amos writes >Board from Round 1 of Crockford's Cup (English Bridge Union KO teams >competition) > >Board 11 Dealer S Love all > > 10 > AKJ872 > AK8 > K53 > >KQ72 986543 >9653 VOID >VOID 9764 >109872 QJ4 > > AJ > Q104 > QJ10532 > A6 > > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1D >PASS 2H PASS 4C* >PASS 4D* PASS 4S* >PASS 7H PASS PASS >DOUBLE PASS PASS PASS > > >North complains at the end of the hand that the Lightner double was not >alerted - if it had been he would have "converted to 7NT" - "because it >was not alerted, he could rely upon it not being Lightner" > I don't like this one much, but in my mind if the call had been alerted then the conversion probably would have taken place. It's a bit of a double shot though. L72B1. "could have enquired without damaging his side's interest" probably doesn't apply as it might wake up an opponent. I'll award 80% of 7NT and 20% of 7Dx 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 Sep 2 09:49:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e81Nndm02219 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 09:49:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e81NnWt02215 for ; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 09:49:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA12423; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 16:49:25 -0700 Message-Id: <200009012349.QAA12423@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Card played or not In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 01 Sep 2000 11:52:57 PDT." <3.0.6.32.20000901115257.008eca40@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 16:49:27 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Dear blmlists, > > An interesting case came on the scene yesterday night. I was unable to find > the right article in TFLB. Please help me. > > South plays a heart contract. After several tricks have been played, the > remaining spades are : > > West North East South > > AQ10 Jxxx x x > > East plays the remaining spade. > South exclaims : 'a spade !' before he even played from his hand. > > Now West quickly plays spade 10 and demands that a small spade be played > from the table, since 'a spade' means a small one (L 46 B2). > > As a director, how would you rule ? I'm not sure what Law I'd apply, but I think West is guilty of bridge lawyering in the first degree, trying to gain from technical legal maneuvering instead of playing bridge. Therefore, I'd rule that no card was played from dummy; I'd levy an appropriate procedural penalty on West; and then since West played out of turn, the person who will have to substitute for West for the rest of the session is required to play the 10. -- 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 Sep 2 13:00:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e822wxo02302 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 12:58:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e822wrt02298 for ; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 12:58:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.196] (d185fc9c4.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.196]) by mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA15045 for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 22:50:54 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200009011502.LAA02197@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200009011502.LAA02197@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 22:54:57 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Card played or not Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Steve Willner writes: >West's "quick" play of S-T and "demand" that declarer play low from dummy >suggest that he knows perfectly well what has happened. > >No matter what your ruling, you should caution South about gratuitous >comments (L74B2). A PP may be in order, probably a warning for a >first offense. I agree with this second bit, but if you decide West did as described, seems to me he ought also to be penalized. Any or all of Laws 72, 74, 90 or 91 might apply here. 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 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBObBs5L2UW3au93vOEQLvRgCcDfkYOlA5gy2nFdcZT29xCVOeDtEAni0h jZXgJzNi+km+GfEE8TeFcVzp =qedM -----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 Sep 2 22:50:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e82CmFt02513 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 22:48:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e82Cm9t02509 for ; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 22:48:09 +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 IAA01157; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 08:48:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <385935034.967898886196.JavaMail.root@web617-ec.mail.com> Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 08:48:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Herman De Wael To: BLML , Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com Subject: RE: [BLML] Maastrict Appeal #3 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: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com "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 HDW: Grattan is sitting next to me, so I must type silently if I want not to seem to be talking for the both of us ? but I think this ruling is a classical example that too much power is demoralizing. HDW: I don't see why it should be. have you ever been on a committee ? Someone suggests something, and you agree. I realized that 4IMPs was equal to less than 20%, and it agreed with me. Am I supposed to write up something we did not discuss ? 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". HDW: well, sadly, it has. ----------------------------------------------- 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 Sat Sep 2 22:59:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e82Cx1I02530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 22:59:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rmx325-mta.mail.com (rmx325-mta.mail.com [165.251.48.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e82Cwst02524 for ; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 22:58:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from web575-ec.mail.com (web575-ec.mail.com [165.251.32.75]) by rmx325-mta.mail.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA19304; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 08:58:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <384230110.967899530493.JavaMail.root@web575-ec.mail.com> Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 08:58:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Herman De Wael To: BLML , alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastrict Appeal #3 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: alain gottcheiner AG : this is what I think the AC did, although they didn't mention it explicitlty. 1) The bidding is clearly tainted with false information 2) West should be allowed to lead a small club (the benefit of the boubt goes entirely to his side) No it does not. The AC decided that West would lead a small club a certain amount of time. This is a MI case, not an UI one. The AC has to decide what would have happened absent the MI, and a proportian of small club lead is what they decided. 3) They estimated the probability of the slam making after the small club lead to about 2/3, weighing it in favor to the innocent side No, less. 4) They awarded 2/3 of the score for 6D= and 1/3 of the score for 6D-1. You might contest the weighing (it should have been 2/3 the other way), but the ruling isn't that absurd. Thanks. ----------------------------------------------- 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 Sat Sep 2 22:59:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e82Cx6n02534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 22:59:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rmx194-mta.mail.com (rmx194-mta.mail.com [165.251.48.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e82Cwwt02529 for ; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 22:58:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from web585-ec.mail.com (web585-ec.mail.com [165.251.32.77]) by rmx194-mta.mail.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA16915; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 08:58:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <384213927.967899533835.JavaMail.root@web585-ec.mail.com> Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 08:58:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Herman De Wael To: BLML , alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastrict Appeal #3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: alain gottcheiner AG : this is what I think the AC did, although they didn't mention it explicitlty. 1) The bidding is clearly tainted with false information 2) West should be allowed to lead a small club (the benefit of the boubt goes entirely to his side) No it does not. The AC decided that West would lead a small club a certain amount of time. This is a MI case, not an UI one. The AC has to decide what would have happened absent the MI, and a proportian of small club lead is what they decided. 3) They estimated the probability of the slam making after the small club lead to about 2/3, weighing it in favor to the innocent side No, less. 4) They awarded 2/3 of the score for 6D= and 1/3 of the score for 6D-1. You might contest the weighing (it should have been 2/3 the other way), but the ruling isn't that absurd. Thanks. 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 Sat Sep 2 23:26:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e82DQ7G02562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 23:26:07 +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 (oe54.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e82DQ2t02558 for ; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 23:26:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 06:25:54 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [195.64.60.246] From: "David Stevenson" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal #3 Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 15:25:38 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Sep 2000 13:25:54.0836 (UTC) FILETIME=[525C6D40:01C014E1] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sorry this will not thread properly. +++++++++++++++++++++++ Konrad wrote: 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". ++++++++++++++++++++++++ No, Konrad, justice is more important than pretty reports to keep BLML happy. To force a Committee to do something like this is unjust. There may always be special cases, and you do not want to limit ACs. I have no idea why they did not quantify, and it certainly looks wrong. But there may be a reason, and if so, I would hate to have such an absolute rule. -- 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 Sat Sep 2 23:58:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e82DvZl02580 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 23:57:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e82DvVt02576 for ; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 23:57:31 +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 e82DvUK25033 for ; Sun, 3 Sep 2000 00:57:30 +1100 (EST) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 00:57:29 +1100 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@medvesajt.anu.edu.au To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastrict Appeal #3 In-Reply-To: <035501c01449$310ede40$1e3a1dc2@rabbit> 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, 1 Sep 2000, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > We found the Israeli to be unlikely to > > find the brilliant lead, and thought > > it would be one in five or six or something. > > That translates into the 4 > > IMPs we awarded. > > No, it doesn't. Declarer can still prevail > on a C lead even if he misguesses and ruffs it. > > Thats the reason why such random adjustments > are always poor rulings: the AC does not work > out the details properly. > Some people seem not have read the Iceland v China match report in the third bulletin. This hand was reported and the final comment was "No doubt this is one of the deals you will read about in newspapers and magazines when you get home but, remember, you saw it here first!" Thorvaldsson for Iceland had the information that dummy was void in clubs and led the C7. Kannavos of Greece also had the club void information and made the same underlead. I don't know how many times the AC was not underlead in relevant scenarios, but the player from Israel would have been a very lively shot to find the same play that these two defenders did. 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 Sun Sep 3 01:49:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e82FmRC02630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Sep 2000 01:48:27 +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 e82FmKt02625 for ; Sun, 3 Sep 2000 01:48:21 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 77481 invoked for bounce); 2 Sep 2000 15:48:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.59.230) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 2 Sep 2000 15:48:16 -0000 Message-ID: <00bc01c014f5$718a3580$e63b1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Lightner strikes Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 17:48:29 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Michael Amos wrote: > Board from Round 1 of Crockford's Cup (English Bridge Union KO teams > competition) > > Board 11 Dealer S Love all > > 10 > AKJ872 > AK8 > K53 > > KQ72 986543 > 9653 VOID > VOID 9764 > 109872 QJ4 > > AJ > Q104 > QJ10532 > A6 > > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1D > PASS 2H PASS 4C* > PASS 4D* PASS 4S* > PASS 7H PASS PASS > DOUBLE PASS PASS PASS > > > North complains at the end of the hand that the Lightner double was not > alerted - if it had been he would have "converted to 7NT" - "because it > was not alerted, he could rely upon it not being Lightner" > > East West are a regular partnership. West says he took his partner's > double to mean either "lead a Diamond and this is going off" or "it's > going off regardless" Result stands. Lightner is the *default* meaning for this double and thus there is no reason to alert it (expect if the contest's conditions explicitely state that a Lightner X has to be alerted, but in that case N still was aware of the likely meaning of the call and could have asked for confirmation). We have discussed this issue before, there was a similar appeal in a previous world championship. 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 Sep 3 02:28:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e82GSgp02660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Sep 2000 02:28:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e82GSat02656 for ; Sun, 3 Sep 2000 02:28:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id MAA10384 for ; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 12:28:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA12202 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 12:28:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 12:28:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200009021628.MAA12202@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Lightner strikes Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > I don't like this one much, but in my mind if the call had been alerted > then the conversion probably would have taken place. It's a bit of a > double shot though. L72B1. "could have enquired without damaging his > side's interest" probably doesn't apply as it might wake up an opponent. Sorry, but I don't understand that last bit. If he inquires and finds out it's Lightner, he will pull to 7NT. Very likely no harm done, even if it does wake up the opponent. And if it's not Lightner, then wakeup is irrelevant. What am I missing? Of course all this assumes Lightner is alertable in the first place. In many jurisdictions it isn't. Is it clear that it is alertable in the EBU? (Or have I mis-remembered where the hand came from?) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 3 02:39:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e82Gct602672 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Sep 2000 02:38:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e82Gcnt02668 for ; Sun, 3 Sep 2000 02:38:50 +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 MAA15594 for ; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 12:38:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA12326 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 12:38:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 12:38:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200009021638.MAA12326@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Maastrict Appeal #3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > Someone suggests something, and you agree. I realized that 4IMPs was equal > to less than 20%, and it agreed with me. > Am I supposed to write up something we did not discuss ? I'm not criticizing Herman or the AC; the above seems very reasonable. Still and all, in future cases, would it be so terrible to append to the report something like: (Scribe's note added after the hearing: the committee's decision is mathematically equivalent to 82% of 6D= and 18% of 6D-1.) I am genuinely asking. Maybe the above is a bad idea, but it seems to me it could clarify the decision for the majority of readers without being inaccurate or misleading. Regardless of the above, an explicit mention of L12C3 is probably useful. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 3 03:20:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e82HKRx02746 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Sep 2000 03:20:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e82HKLt02742 for ; Sun, 3 Sep 2000 03:20:21 +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 13VGxk-0001MO-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 18:20:17 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 18:19:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Lightner strikes References: <200009021628.MAA12202@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200009021628.MAA12202@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 In article <200009021628.MAA12202@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >> I don't like this one much, but in my mind if the call had been alerted >> then the conversion probably would have taken place. It's a bit of a >> double shot though. L72B1. "could have enquired without damaging his >> side's interest" probably doesn't apply as it might wake up an opponent. > >Sorry, but I don't understand that last bit. If he inquires and finds >out it's Lightner, he will pull to 7NT. Very likely no harm done, even >if it does wake up the opponent. And if it's not Lightner, then wakeup >is irrelevant. > I was quoting from memory from the Orange Book. The point is if one can ask without damaging ones sides interest one should do so. I wouldn't ask in this position because I don't want to wake doubler's partner up to the fact it IS Lightner, if it is, as I don't want to have the TD deciding whether there was any LA to a D lead when I call in the NYPD. >What am I missing? > >Of course all this assumes Lightner is alertable in the first place. In >many jurisdictions it isn't. Is it clear that it is alertable in the >EBU? (Or have I mis-remembered where the hand came from?) It is of course, everything non-natural is alertable in the 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/ -- 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 Sun Sep 3 04:00:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e82I06u02773 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Sep 2000 04:00:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e82I01t02769 for ; Sun, 3 Sep 2000 04:00:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot32.domain8.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ra192547 for ; Sun, 3 Sep 2000 03:53:55 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-002-p-212-113.tmns.net.au ([203.54.212.113]) by mail8.bigpond.com (Claudes-Tidy-MailRouter V2.9b 17/3286582); 03 Sep 2000 03:53:54 Message-ID: <002701c01573$be007fe0$71d436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal #3 Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 16:54:01 +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: > I have no idea why they did not quantify, and it certainly >looks wrong. But there may be a reason, and if so, I would >hate to have such an absolute rule. I think that to force an AC to "pre-imps quantify" is a bit like forcing a bridge player to quantify by assigning HCP when evaluating the potential of his hand. It may cause more problems than it's worth. I think that if a Committee comes up with a reasonable decision without contravening the words of the Laws, which IMO is clearly the case here, then their failure to follow the traditional procedure is fine. By the way, Fred Gitelman has told me in private emails that when he submitted the appeal to the rgb Newsgroup, he didn't know that 12C3 was enabled for WBF ACs, so perhaps his main objection is that there hasn't been enough publicity (e.g. in Daily Bulletins) to let the bridge world know what's going on. I see that at Maastricht DWS has been rectifying this problem anyway by writing appropriate articles in the Daily Bulletins. Fred will be in Maastricht in a couple of days (not playing, I wonder if he will be coopted as an expert player onto ACs?), so some of you can chat to him about the solutions to the problem then. 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 Sep 3 04:32:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e82IW6Z02793 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Sep 2000 04:32:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.211.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e82IVxt02789 for ; Sun, 3 Sep 2000 04:32:00 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 81509 invoked for bounce); 2 Sep 2000 18:31:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.59.140) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 2 Sep 2000 18:31:55 -0000 Message-ID: <008301c0150c$4e55a380$8c3b1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastrict Appeal #3 Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 20:27:04 +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 "Mark Abraham" wrote: > On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > > > > We found the Israeli to be unlikely to > > > find the brilliant lead, and thought > > > it would be one in five or six or something. > > > That translates into the 4 > > > IMPs we awarded. > > > > No, it doesn't. Declarer can still prevail > > on a C lead even if he misguesses and ruffs > > > > Thats the reason why such random adjustments > > are always poor rulings: the AC does not work > > out the details properly. > > > > Some people seem not have read the Iceland v China match report in the > third bulletin. This hand was reported and the final comment was "No > doubt this is one of the deals you will read about in newspapers and > magazines when you get home but, remember, you saw it here first!" > > Thorvaldsson for Iceland had the information that dummy was void in clubs > and led the C7. Kannavos of Greece also had the club void information and > made the same underlead. I don't know how many times the AC was not > underlead in relevant scenarios, but the player from Israel would have > been a very lively shot to find the same > play that these two defenders did. This is a very different point. My argument above is that the AC has to detail how they arrive at their adjustment, they cannot (or at least they should not) just set a random score resp. IMP/MP result. In the case of the Maastricht Appeal #3, if they would have worked it out, they would have noticed that three conditions have to meet for 6D to fail: - C underlead (which was prevented by the MI) - declarer misguesses and ruffs - declarer later mishandles the hand The AC has evaluate all those three conditions before they make an adjustment. They apparently didn't, and thats the reason this decision is bad. Assume the AC's decision would have been: "The AC has estimated the probability of a low club lead (without the UI) as 20%. The AC estimates that there exists a significant likelihood that declarer would have gone down with a low C lead. We thus adjust the score to 80% 6D= + 20% 6D -1 (L12C3)." I.e. in case several conditions have to be met at the same time, can the AC decide to do equity on one of those conditions (the C underlead in this case) and award "the best/worst result which was (at all) likely had the irregularity not occurred" with respect to the other conditions? 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 Sep 3 06:16:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e82KFVU02838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Sep 2000 06:15:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e82KFOt02834 for ; Sun, 3 Sep 2000 06:15:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcauguv.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.67.223]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA25479 for ; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 16:15:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <005301c0151a$6a340160$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <200009012349.QAA12423@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Card played or not Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 16:14:35 -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: "Adam Beneschan" To: Cc: Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 7:49 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Card played or not > > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > Dear blmlists, > > > > An interesting case came on the scene yesterday night. I was unable to find > > the right article in TFLB. Please help me. > > > > South plays a heart contract. After several tricks have been played, the > > remaining spades are : > > > > West North East South > > > > AQ10 Jxxx x x > > > > East plays the remaining spade. > > South exclaims : 'a spade !' before he even played from his hand. > > > > Now West quickly plays spade 10 and demands that a small spade be played > > from the table, since 'a spade' means a small one (L 46 B2). > > > > As a director, how would you rule ? > > I'm not sure what Law I'd apply, but I think West is guilty of bridge > lawyering in the first degree, trying to gain from technical legal > maneuvering instead of playing bridge. Agreed. >Therefore, I'd rule that no > card was played from dummy; True, if Declarer did not in fact intend to play from Dummy. However, even if Declarer did intend the play, there's 47B: "A played card may be withdrawn to correct an illegal or simultaneous play..." So, it looks like Declarer can withdraw the card played from Dummy, whether he intended to play it or not. If Declarer actually intended the play, it represents a violation of 44B: "After the lead, each player in turn plays a card...". Since no penalty is specified for violating this, we can adjust using one of the catchalls (72B1 or 12A1), should it be necessary. >I'd levy an appropriate procedural penalty > on West; and then since West played out of turn, the person who will > have to substitute for West for the rest of the session is required to > play the 10. > > -- Adam > -- I'm not sure that bridge-lawyering is sufficient cause to kick a player out of the game, as tempting as it might be. Best to let him finish the session with a large PP, to prevent disruption of the movement. In some cases bridge-lawyering can be cured by judicious application of PPs. However, if he's a hard core offender, he can be quietly executed after the game, when it will be easier to get rid of the body. Regards, Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 3 10:28:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e830RZS02930 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Sep 2000 10:27:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e830RSt02926 for ; Sun, 3 Sep 2000 10:27:29 +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 UAA10044 for ; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 20:27:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id UAA16815 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 20:27:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 20:27:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200009030027.UAA16815@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Lightner strikes Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > I wouldn't > ask in this position because I don't want to wake doubler's partner up > to the fact it IS Lightner, if it is, as I don't want to have the TD > deciding whether there was any LA to a D lead when I call in the NYPD. Sorry, John, I'm being dense and still don't follow you. If you find out it's Lightner, you will pull to 7NT. Where do the NYPD get involved? (Your question is AI, should it matter.) I suppose tipping West(?) off to East's diamond void might help him find the killing lead against 7NT, but that seems unlikely. If it's not Lightner, you don't seem to have woken the opponents up to anything. Could you spell out exactly how the question helps the opponents? Of course given that Lightner is definitely alertable -- I should have realized that! -- we ought to have considerable sympathy for the NOS. Still, what do you do if the defenders have never played together before and haven't discussed the matter? Most players probably _expect_ the double to be Lightner and _act_ as though it is, but they don't have any _agreement_. (I forget the circumstances of the original case; were EW an established partnership? Even if so, we can imagine a different case where they are not.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 3 19:58:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e839ueA03132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Sep 2000 19:56:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe27.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e839uYt03128 for ; Sun, 3 Sep 2000 19:56:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 3 Sep 2000 02:56:26 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [195.64.60.246] From: "David Stevenson" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Maastrict Appeal #3 Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 11:56:39 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Sep 2000 09:56:26.0977 (UTC) FILETIME=[39BF1510:01C0158D] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > From: Herman De Wael > Someone suggests something, and you agree. I realized that 4IMPs was equal > to less than 20%, and it agreed with me. > Am I supposed to write up something we did not discuss ? I'm not criticizing Herman or the AC; the above seems very reasonable. Still and all, in future cases, would it be so terrible to append to the report something like: (Scribe's note added after the hearing: the committee's decision is mathematically equivalent to 82% of 6D= and 18% of 6D-1.) I am genuinely asking. Maybe the above is a bad idea, but it seems to me it could clarify the decision for the majority of readers without being inaccurate or misleading. Regardless of the above, an explicit mention of L12C3 is probably useful. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The scribe's job is to report the Committee's decision. When a Committee decides *not* to publish its calculation, it is not the scribe's job to over-rule the Committee decision. Nor is it the scribe's job to add explanatory remarks to the decision. Whatever you may think of Appeal #3, do not blame the scribe for accurate reporting. Apart from any other consideration, these reports are vetted by the Committee Chairman [cf Reporting of Appeals, CoP]: do you really want the Chairman to see the scribe has added something the Committee has ddeliberately omitted? -- 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 Sun Sep 3 20:08:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e83A8WO03148 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Sep 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 hotmail.com (oe49.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e83A8Qt03144 for ; Sun, 3 Sep 2000 20:08:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 3 Sep 2000 03:08:19 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [195.64.60.246] From: "David Stevenson" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal #3 Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 12:08:31 +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 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Sep 2000 10:08:19.0259 (UTC) FILETIME=[E24CB0B0:01C0158E] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ======================================== Peter Gill wrote: Fred will be in Maastricht in a couple of days (not playing, I wonder if he will be coopted as an expert player onto ACs?), so some of you can chat to him about the solutions to the problem then. ======================================== No, the Appeals Committee was decided in advance by Jose Damiani, and there is no intention to add to it. The Committee comprises: Appeals Committee: Bobby Wolff (Chairman, USA), Joan Gerard (Chairman, USA), John Wignall (Chairman, New Zealand), Grattan Endicott (Co-ordinator, England), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), David Stevenson (Scribe, England), Richard Colker (USA), Ernesto d'Orsi (Brazil), Jean-Paul Meyer (France), Dan Morse (USA), Jeffrey Polisner (USA), Nissan Rand (Israel) While Herman and I are scribes, that is additional: we are full members of Committees. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 4 02:19:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e83GHf403369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 02:17:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rmx308-mta.mail.com (rmx308-mta.mail.com [165.251.48.43]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e83GHZt03365 for ; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 02:17:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from web447-ec.mail.com (web447-ec.mail.com [165.251.32.74]) by rmx308-mta.mail.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA14158; Sun, 3 Sep 2000 12:17:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <381364975.967997851470.JavaMail.root@web447-ec.mail.com> Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 12:17:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Herman De Wael To: BLML , "David Stevenson" Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal #3 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: "David Stevenson" No, the Appeals Committee was decided in advance by Jose Damiani, and there is no intention to add to it. The Committee comprises: Of course as soon as this was written, there was a decision to add to the AC : Jens Auken (Denmark) ----------------------------------------------- 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 Mon Sep 4 03:50:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e83Hmux03462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 03:48:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e83Hmot03458 for ; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 03:48:50 +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 NAA21304 for ; Sun, 3 Sep 2000 13:48:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA26632 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 3 Sep 2000 13:48:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 13:48:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200009031748.NAA26632@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Maastrict Appeal #3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "David Stevenson" > Nor is it the scribe's job to add explanatory remarks to the decision. Obviously it isn't now. The question is, why shouldn't it be? There are often facts that are obvious to all members of the committee and thus not discussed explicitly that may not be obvious to readers of the reports. Or in the example case, there was a simple mathematical calculation that perhaps 50% of readers can do trivially but the other 50% will find a complete mystery. Why not help them out? > Apart from any other consideration, these reports are vetted by the > Committee Chairman [cf Reporting of Appeals, CoP]: do you really want the > Chairman to see the scribe has added something the Committee has > deliberately omitted? This seems to be an argument in favor of adding explanatory comments. If the scribe is mistaken or adds something that goes beyond simple explanation or was deliberately, as opposed to accidentally or thoughtlessly, omitted, the chairman can have it removed. "It isn't done," is not an argument against doing something! _Why_ is it a bad idea for the scribe to add incontrovertible facts, properly labeled, to AC reports? I can believe there may be good reasons, but I'm waiting to hear 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 Mon Sep 4 09:35:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e83NYrO03578 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 09:34:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e83NYmt03574 for ; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 09:34:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot32.domain8.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ua217718 for ; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 09:34:24 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-226-97.tmns.net.au ([203.54.226.97]) by mail8.bigpond.com (Claudes-Interstellar-MailRouter V2.9b 17/3638425); 04 Sep 2000 09:34:08 Message-ID: <00b401c0166c$90e85c40$61e236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal #3 Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 22:34:56 +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 Note: the Appeal #3 write-up is reprinted at the bottom of this post. WARNING: Very long posting follows. David Stevenson wrote: >Peter Gill wrote: > >Fred will be in Maastricht in a couple of days (not playing, >I wonder if he will be coopted as an expert player onto ACs?), >.............. >======================================== > > > No, the Appeals Committee was decided in advance by >Jose Damiani, and there is no intention to add to it. > The Committee comprises: > >Appeals Committee: > >Bobby Wolff (Chairman, USA), >Joan Gerard (Chairman, USA), >John Wignall (Chairman, New Zealand), >Grattan Endicott (Co-ordinator, England), >Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), >David Stevenson (Scribe, England), >Richard Colker (USA), >Ernesto d'Orsi (Brazil), >Jean-Paul Meyer (France), >Dan Morse (USA), >Jeffrey Polisner (USA), >Nissan Rand (Israel) My radical idea of having genuine expert players on ACs at World Championships (WC) is intended the avoid the problem that appears to have afflicted this particular AC, namely that it is difficult to quantify when the AC lacks peers of Chemla and Kalish. Sure, Meyer is on the above list, but he wasn't on this AC. Take the appeals at Lille. At least two people who took a look through the lot of them thought that "expert judgement" (i.e analysis of WC-level card play etc) seemed to increase significantly for the appeals which included Chris Compton. To give another example, in the appeals in the recent Anaheim Daily bulletins, the one with Meckstroth as Chair had spot-on expert analysis, at the appropriate "peers" level, whereas a much-criticised Anaheim AC appeal did not include an expert of such stnding. Yes, I know, the Mecxkstroths, Gitelmans and Comptons of our world are in fairly short supply. By "expert", I mean an expert based on results rather than reputation. Heaps of old people who play in the Seniors are on the AC; most have been playing for a long time so they have a reputation. This doesn't necessarily make them capable of the difficult task of analysing how Chemla might play a tough hand. Hence the AC's out-of-touch comment about "brilliancy". Isn't a brilliancy is something that one exceptional player does? I've never heard of a Brilliancy Prize being awarded to "all ten players who sat East" because they all did the same good play. Mark Abraham in Australia has discovered that the Iceland and Greek West underled CA, perhaps others did too. Almost certainly most of them were in the Open field unless Sabine Auken happened to be West. In the Senior's or Women's field, perhaps the ace underlead might be a brilliancy. However in the Open field, you've got to be kidding. This is the point which Fred Gitelman made on rgb. He would have adjusted the lead to be a small club because his (Fred's) brain works along similar lines to the players in question. So, on an AC for an Open match, it is insane not to place on the AC any peers of Chemla and the West player. To me, the addition of someone like Jens Auken is a step toward the right direction but is still typical of the poor thinking - reputation rather than reality. What results does Jens have at the highest levels, except Mixed Pairs with a world-best partner. Compare with, say - Chris Compton - 4th in the World Pairs in Lille, 4th in the World Pairs in Albuquerque - both world class results. - Fred Gitelman - 2nd in Spingold the other day. At least two silver medals at World Championships, including the Bermuda Bowl, despite coming from a country not known for such results. At the same time I happen to think that this AC decision was OK, by the way. It's the process which worries me. The slack composition of ACs both in Australia and at WBF level (i.e. at both levels which affect players from my country) leads inevitably to reasoning such as Maastricht #3 because the AC members are out of their depth, unable to do what they are meant to do, i.e. unable to analyse fully the possible sequences of play by Chemla's peers after the ace underlead. This raises an interesting question. Should an AC such as this one, which happens to be light on for Chemla-peers (i.e there are zero Chemla-peers on the AC) consult experts for opening lead and card play analysis? That way, the AC would have had some basis for its decision, instead of having to do what it seemingly did and basically say that "it's too hard for us to quantify what would have happened because none of us are peers of the players concerned". If so, I think that the step-by-step written process for AC Procedure should include the possibility that the AC Chairman gets expert advice on "how the play by Chemla might go on Cx lead" before the "inadequately-constituted" (for the purposes of card play analysis in this particular case) AC meets. Or would that be inappropriate in some way? IMO a WBF AC's job is not to amuse onlookers with laughable descriptions (e.g "brilliancy") of a reasonable-at-this-level but beyond-the-understanding-of-the-personnel-on-the-AC-that-it-is- reasonable-at-this-level ace underlead. The point is that the club ace underlead should be allowed AT THIS LEVEL and then this AC decision comes down to the difficult card play analysis. Card play analysis which noone on the AC bothered to do. And which nonone on rgb bothered to do (in a long thread). And which noone on BLML has bothered to do. It's a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. Peter Gill Australia. APPEAL REPRINT Israel v France Appeals Committee: John Wignall (Chairman, New Zealand), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Grattan Endicott (England), Dan Morse (USA), Nissan Rand (Israel). Open Teams Round 3 Board 16. Dealer West. East/West Vulnerable. Q J 6 A K Q 7 3 2 A 9 8 3 - 7 5 4 3 K 8 2 8 5 J 9 6 4 - K 10 7 5 A 8 7 6 5 4 3 J 9 A 10 9 10 Q J 6 4 2 K Q 10 2 West North East South Kalish Levy Podgur Chemla Pass 1H Pass 2D Pass 3S (1) Pass 3NT Pass 4H Pass 4S Pass 5C (2) Pass 6D All Pass Comments: (1) explained by North to East as "values, D support ¨, short C"; explained by South to West as "not sure, maybe splinter" (2) explained by North as "void", by South as "cuebid" Contract: Six Diamonds, played by South Lead: Ace of Clubs Result: 12 tricks, NS +920 The Facts: Three Spades was explained differently at both sides, obviously incorrectly at the South/West side. West claimed he would have led differently with correct information. Well after the session, West came to the Director to state that he might have led a small club. On that lead, there is a chance that declarer would go down. The Director: Found that since the lead of the small club was not mentioned immediately, it would not be taken into consideration. With any other lead, South is expected to always make 12 tricks. Ruling: Result Stands. Relevant Laws: Law 75D2 East/West appealed. The Players: East/West, by means of their captain, pointed out that West was a world-class player, for whom the lead of the small club was a possibility. With the explanations that he received, West was so certain to find the King of Clubs in dummy, that he did not think very long about his lead. East/West found it very strange that South bid three no-trumps naturally, opposite what he explained to be a singleton spade. South explained that three no-trumps was a sort of a relay, although he admitted he had not alerted it. He apologised for his wrong explanation. He usually plays fragments showing the Ace, and since he held that card himself, he was confused. North added that it would have been unheard for him to bid five clubs on the King alone. The Committee: Found that South had been wrong in not explaining the three spade bid correctly, not alerting his three no-trumps, and not explaining the meaning of the bidding before the lead. All this added up to mean that West had been denied his chance at brilliancy. The Committee did not want to quantify this chance, and chose to express their views into imps directly. The original imp balance had been +11 to the team of North/South (5D made at the other table) The Committee's decision: Score adjusted to +7 imps to the team of North/South Deposit: Returned END -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 4 11:13:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e841Cu603621 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 11:12:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e841Cot03617 for ; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 11:12:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-1054l5c.dsl.mindspring.com [64.82.84.172]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA19931 for ; Sun, 3 Sep 2000 21:12:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000903211244.013e8cc8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 21:12:44 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] Lightner strikes In-Reply-To: <200009030027.UAA16815@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 08:27 PM 9/2/2000 -0400, Steve wrote: >Sorry, John, I'm being dense and still don't follow you. > >If you find out it's Lightner, you will pull to 7NT. Where do the NYPD >get involved? (Your question is AI, should it matter.) I suppose >tipping West(?) off to East's diamond void might help him find the >killing lead against 7NT, but that seems unlikely. I THINK the complaint is as follows. Declarer has heard the double (which he indeed assumes to be Lightner), but has not heard an alert. In his mind, this is important. Even if, as he suspects, the double may be lead-directing, it appears LHO is asleep at the switch, in which case he may well survive when 7nt is failing, not to mention the bonus for making the contract doubled. In any event, he reasons, he is entitled to act on the assumption that the double is not Lightner, based on the lack of the alert. And to ask at this point might easily jeopardize his chance at making a doubled grand, if he has judged the situation accurately. And if he hasn't judged correctly, there's always the chance he can win the board from a sympathetic TD or AC. 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 Mon Sep 4 11:56:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e841ul303645 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 11:56:47 +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 e841ugt03641 for ; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 11:56:42 +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 LAA00079 for ; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 11:52:34 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 04 Sep 2000 12:53:06 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL policy on agreements after opponents' irregularity To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 12:54:41 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 04/09/2000 12:50:14 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The ACBL rule was quoted by Steve Willner: "A pair may not change their conventional agreements contingent upon an opponent's irregularity. Natural methods may be altered if they are otherwise permitted." Let us assume that a partnership is playing the popular conventional agreement *negative doubles*. An opponent makes an insufficient bid. This is condoned, and doubled. By bridge logic, the double of an insufficient bid is a *penalty* double (as the infractor is not given the option of changing their insufficient bid to a Pass). Indeed, such a penalty double of an insufficient bid formed the basis of a problem in The Bridge World's Master Solvers' Club. But is a partnership changing from negative to penalty doubles mid-auction legal in the ACBL? If it is illegal, has the ACBL again exceeded its authority by prohibiting a natural call? 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 Sep 4 14:01:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8440AZ03717 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 14:00:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e84405t03713 for ; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 14:00:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([210.55.47.75]) by mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20000904040717.TMTT29834.mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 16:07:17 +1200 Message-ID: <001801c01623$fda09580$4b2f37d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL policy on agreements after opponents' irregularity Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 15:55:32 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: > > The ACBL rule was quoted by Steve Willner: > > "A pair may not change their conventional agreements contingent upon > an opponent's irregularity. Natural methods may be altered if they > are otherwise permitted." > > Let us assume that a partnership is playing the popular conventional > agreement *negative doubles*. > > An opponent makes an insufficient bid. This is condoned, and doubled. By > bridge logic, the double of an insufficient bid is a *penalty* double (as > the infractor is not given the option of changing their insufficient bid to > a Pass). Indeed, such a penalty double of an insufficient bid formed the > basis of a problem in The Bridge World's Master Solvers' Club. > > But is a partnership changing from negative to penalty doubles mid-auction > legal in the ACBL? If it is illegal, has the ACBL again exceeded its > authority by prohibiting a natural call? I dont know what the official interpretation is but it seems that logic dictates that: The pair cannot change their conventional agreement to use negative doubles; I don't think this is exceeding the authority to regulate conventions. The ACBL are just saying if you play a convention then you must play the same convention after the opponent's insufficient bid. I happen to think this much power is unproductive but it appears and has been tested that WBF intend granting very wide ranging power to SO even to the extent that it impinges on natural (non-conventional) calls. Wayne Burrows -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 4 18:29:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e848Okx03964 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 18:24:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e848Oet03960 for ; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 18:24:41 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id JAA23992 for Bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 09:24:32 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 09:24 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL policy on agreements after opponents' irregularity 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: <001801c01623$fda09580$4b2f37d2@laptop> wayne Burrows wrote: > From: > > > > The ACBL rule was quoted by Steve Willner: > > > > "A pair may not change their conventional agreements contingent > > upon an opponent's irregularity. Natural methods may be altered if > > they are otherwise permitted." > > > > Let us assume that a partnership is playing the popular > > conventional agreement *negative doubles*. > > > > An opponent makes an insufficient bid. This is condoned, and > > doubled. By bridge logic, the double of an insufficient bid is a > > *penalty* double (as the infractor is not given the option of > > changing their insufficient bid to a Pass). Indeed, such a > > penalty double of an insufficient bid formed the > > basis of a problem in The Bridge World's Master Solvers' Club. > > > > But is a partnership changing from negative to penalty doubles > > mid-auction legal in the ACBL? If it is illegal, has the ACBL > > again exceeded its authority by prohibiting a natural call? Yes, and Yes IMO > I dont know what the official interpretation is but it seems that > logic dictates that: > > The pair cannot change their conventional agreement to use negative > doubles; Generally "conventions off" after certain types of intervention is accepted. But even if this is an exception to this practice: What if they are, by agreement, playing negative doubles only after overcalls (not undercalls)? Or put another way "If partner opens 1D we play -ve doubles of suit bids from 1H to 3S" "If partner opens 1H we play -ve doubles of suit bids from 1S to 3S" etc A long-winded description but it gets round the problem. > I don't think this is exceeding the authority to regulate > conventions. The ACBL are just saying if you play a convention then > you must play the same convention after the opponent's insufficient > bid. I think the ACBL is saying (or should be) you may not play conventions that apply *only* after opponent's infractions. Ie if you are playing penalty doubles you may not agree -ve double after 1S-1H. 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 Sep 4 19:37:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e849alu04048 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 19:36:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e849agt04044 for ; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 19:36:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([210.55.45.251]) by mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20000904094740.BXMW524937.mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 21:47:40 +1200 Message-ID: <012d01c01653$036940a0$4b2f37d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL policy on agreements after opponents' irregularity Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 21:32:10 +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: "Tim West-meads" > > > "A pair may not change their conventional agreements contingent > > > upon an opponent's irregularity. Natural methods may be altered if > > > they are otherwise permitted." > > > > > Generally "conventions off" after certain types of intervention is > accepted. But even if this is an exception to this practice: > > What if they are, by agreement, playing negative doubles only after > overcalls (not undercalls)? > Or put another way > "If partner opens 1D we play -ve doubles of suit bids from 1H to 3S" > "If partner opens 1H we play -ve doubles of suit bids from 1S to 3S" > etc > A long-winded description but it gets round the problem. > > > I don't think this is exceeding the authority to regulate > > conventions. The ACBL are just saying if you play a convention then > > you must play the same convention after the opponent's insufficient > > bid. > > I think the ACBL is saying (or should be) you may not play conventions > that apply *only* after opponent's infractions. Ie if you are playing > penalty doubles you may not agree -ve double after 1S-1H. > But what they say is that the conventional agreements that a partnership has "may not change". That is, IMO the conventional agreements you have over legal interference must remain unchanged over "insufficient" interference. 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 Sep 4 21:30:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e84BU8004109 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 21:30:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e84BU2t04105 for ; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 21:30:02 +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 NAA01018; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 13:28:30 +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 NAA13631; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 13:29:37 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000904133924.008736f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 13:39:24 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] Debriefing from 'card played or not' Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thank you lads ! I was South in this case (surprise, surprise). The TD, a known name in his office (no, he isn't a blml-ist), decided, without enquiring very long (well, he was playing at another table), that a small spade had been played from the table. It went a little bit like this : - did you or did you not call a small spade ? - yes, but I didn't play ... - (interrupting) then a small spade has to be played from dummy. You know that, don't you ? Ben Schelen found the right answer : I was neither calling a card from the table nor exclaiming from surprise. I was calling a card from my own hand, because the left one was holding the cards, and the right one my glass of Ice Tea (East had taken a long time before playing the spade). This procedure is tolerated (law 45 C 4 a) and a small spade has indeed been played ... from my own hand. I think I will receive another glass of Ice Tea next thursday from a well-known director ... 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 Mon Sep 4 21:50:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e84Bnnn04126 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 21:49:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e84Bngt04122 for ; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 21:49:43 +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 NAA07457; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 13:50:22 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id NAA25169; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 13:49:19 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000904135907.00880bd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 13:59:07 +0200 To: Herman De Wael , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] Maastrict Appeal #3 In-Reply-To: <385935034.967898886196.JavaMail.root@web617-ec.mail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:48 2/09/00 -0400, you wrote: >------Original Message------ >From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com > >"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. AG : you get the blessing of a mathematician on this reasoning. > >The AC should be forced to publish the bidding/play scenarios and the >assigned probabilities. AG : oh yeah ! Mathematics tell us there are about one billion billion ways for a deal to be played, assuming there are no revokes. So you assign a probability to all of these, and calculate the 'average expectancy'. This should take about a thousand billion years. Not a very efficient way to deal with the problem. More seriously, taking into account all plausible scenarios would be difficult, and the probability should rather be assigned in some aggregate way. Of course the AC shuold have stated this probability first, then converted the score, but I do feel it did no obvious error here. 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 Sep 4 22:06:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e84C6DB04188 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 22:06:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e84C67t04184 for ; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 22:06:07 +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 OAA11962; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 14:06:46 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id OAA05546; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 14:05:43 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000904141531.00881100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 14:15:31 +0200 To: michael amos , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Lightner strikes 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 10:56 1/09/00 +0100, you wrote: >Board from Round 1 of Crockford's Cup (English Bridge Union KO teams >competition) > >Board 11 Dealer S Love all > > 10 > AKJ872 > AK8 > K53 > >KQ72 986543 >9653 VOID >VOID 9764 >109872 QJ4 > > AJ > Q104 > QJ10532 > A6 > > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1D >PASS 2H PASS 4C* >PASS 4D* PASS 4S* >PASS 7H PASS PASS >DOUBLE PASS PASS PASS > > >North complains at the end of the hand that the Lightner double was not >alerted - if it had been he would have "converted to 7NT" - "because it >was not alerted, he could rely upon it not being Lightner" > >East West are a regular partnership. West says he took his partner's >double to mean either "lead a Diamond and this is going off" or "it's >going off regardless" > >The standard is quite reasonable - East West are Life Masters and >although North South are not known to me they are to be regarded as >similar playing standard in a national competition. > >How do you rule? > AG : there was a similar case in Albuquerque, if I remember well. The AC was very harsh on the appelants. 1) If N/S are competent, thzey should know most players use either Lightner or "two-way Lightner", which one could define as "They have bid plums. Lead a plum. Either it is necessary or they are down in any case.". 2) So, N/S failed to protect themselves. 3) If Lightner is alertable, assign a small PP on E/W for failure to alert (they might have ignored it was alertable, since it is not in some countries). 4) In any case, result stands. 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 Mon Sep 4 22:21:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e84CL5V04216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 22:21:05 +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 e84CKtt04212 for ; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 22:20:56 +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 OAA17521; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 14:19:25 +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 OAA14844; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 14:20:30 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000904143018.00883220@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 14:30:18 +0200 To: "Wayne Burrows" , From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL policy on agreements after opponents' irregularity In-Reply-To: <012d01c01653$036940a0$4b2f37d2@laptop> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I can think of a more intricate case about 'change of system after undercall' (I love the term) : We play lebensohl after 1NT - 2 any. I open 2NT. They undercall 2 spades. Is my partner allowed to une lebensohl ? Is it a change of system ? (no mention is done of lebensohl after 2NT opening, of course) or not (we use lebensohl after 1NT, any by the way after 1x - 2y too, so it is in the system) ? A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 5 03:49:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e84HjwZ04410 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 03:45:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e84Hjpt04406 for ; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 03:45:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcauis9.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.75.137]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA23708 for ; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 13:45:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001001c01697$d7ea4060$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000904133924.008736f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Debriefing from 'card played or not' Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 13:44:57 -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: "alain gottcheiner" To: Sent: Monday, September 04, 2000 7:39 AM Subject: [BLML] Debriefing from 'card played or not' > Thank you lads ! > > I was South in this case (surprise, surprise). > The TD, a known name in his office (no, he isn't a blml-ist), decided, > without enquiring very long (well, he was playing at another table), that a > small spade had been played from the table. Have that TD take another look at the laws. Even if he had ruled that you had played the spade from the table, it can be withdrawn under 47B. A play from the wrong hand is illegal, isn't it? It doesn't really matter which hand you intended to play from, as the card can be withdrawn in either case. If the ruling was that you had intended to play from the board, then you would be subject to an adjustment if the illegal play met the conditions of "could have known it would be likely to damage the non-offending side (72B1)" or "the laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation... (12A1)". If the TD had ruled correctly that you were designating your own card, then you would not be subject to later adjustment, of course. If W believed that you were designating a card from Dummy, his play of the spade ten was also out of turn, as you had not yet played. Did the TD ignore this violation entirely? >It went a little bit like this : > - did you or did you not call a small spade ? > - yes, but I didn't play ... > - (interrupting) then a small spade has to be played from dummy. You know > that, don't you ? > > Ben Schelen found the right answer : I was neither calling a card from the > table nor exclaiming from surprise. I was calling a card from my own hand, > because the left one was holding the cards, and the right one my glass of > Ice Tea (East had taken a long time before playing the spade). This > procedure is tolerated (law 45 C 4 a) and a small spade has indeed been > played ... from my own hand. > > I think I will receive another glass of Ice Tea next thursday from a > well-known director ... > > Alain. > Regards, Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 5 04:28:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e84ISM404435 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 04:28:22 +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 e84ISFt04431 for ; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 04:28:16 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id TAA19249 for Bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 19:28:08 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 19:28 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL policy on agreements after opponents' irregularity 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: <012d01c01653$036940a0$4b2f37d2@laptop> "Wayne Burrows" wrote: > > I think the ACBL is saying (or should be) you may not play > > conventions that apply *only* after opponent's infractions. > > Ie if you are playing penalty doubles you may not agree -ve double > > after 1S-1H. > > > > But what they say is that the conventional agreements that a > partnership has "may not change". That is, IMO the conventional > agreements you have over legal interference must remain unchanged > over "insufficient" interference. This, IMO, would put them outside (or at the edge of) the law. I choose to read it as "you may not substitute one convention for another, or substitute a convention for a natural bid but you are free to abandon conventional bids for natural ones." As to Alain Gottcheiner's question. Just play "Lebensohl is on when opponets overcall a NT bid at the 2-level" or "Lebensohl only after 1N-2x" as you prefer. 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 Tue Sep 5 06:52:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e84KqAS04500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 06:52:10 +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.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.211.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e84Kq2t04496 for ; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 06:52:04 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 18894 invoked for bounce); 4 Sep 2000 20:51:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.57.29) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 4 Sep 2000 20:51:57 -0000 Message-ID: <008801c016b2$3296b060$1d391dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000904135907.00880bd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastrict Appeal #3 Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 22:52:47 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "alain gottcheiner" wrote: > At 08:48 2/09/00 -0400, you wrote: > >------Original Message------ > >From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com > > > >"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. > > AG : you get the blessing of a mathematician on this reasoning. > > > > >The AC should be forced to publish the bidding/play scenarios and the > >assigned probabilities. > > AG : oh yeah ! Mathematics tell us there are about one billion billion ways > for a deal to be played, assuming there are no revokes. So you assign a > probability to all of these, and calculate the 'average expectancy'. This > should take about a thousand billion years. Not a very efficient way to > deal with the problem. > More seriously, taking into account all plausible scenarios would be > difficult, and the probability should rather be assigned in some aggregate > way. Of course the AC shuold have stated this probability first, then > converted the score, but I do feel it did no obvious error here. I have no qualms with the AC assigning the probability in some aggregate way. I don't like it, however, if the AC apparently does not analyze at all how likely it is that 6D would make on a low C lead. It definitely seems that they did not notice that 6C can be made even on a low C lead, ruffed. 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 Sep 5 09:05:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e84N4nV04559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 09:04:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (omicron.comarch.pl [195.116.125.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e84N3et04555 for ; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 09:03:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (pc38.krakow.ppp.tpnet.pl [212.160.4.38]) by omicron.comarch.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40FEE17701; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 01:00:03 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39B429DF.3E12E21B@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 01:01:51 +0200 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: David Stevenson , Herman De Wael Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal #3 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Sorry this will not thread properly. > > +++++++++++++++++++++++ > Konrad wrote: > > 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". > ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > No, Konrad, justice is more important than pretty reports to keep BLML > happy. To force a Committee to do something like this is unjust. There may > always be special cases, and you do not want to limit ACs. > > I have no idea why they did not quantify, and it certainly looks wrong. > But there may be a reason, and if so, I would hate to have such an absolute > rule. I am beginning to think that Herman and you have a wrong idea why I oppose so strongly against this ruling. It is very probable that it is my fault; sadly, my language, unlike Grattan's, is not an example of tact and careful selection of words. It might be worth therefore clarifying the position. Perhaps you imagine that my idea of the Committee at work is something like this: the smoke of cigarettes, the glasses of wine, the roulette wheel and the Chairman announcing "Place your bets, please". The number 7 came out so 7IMPs have been given to the French team. Let me say this: I vehemently object to "not quantifying" on this appeal but I have no doubt that AC tries really hard to give a fair and just ruling in every case. No doubt they tried to do it this time also. One more thing: I agree in general with the ruling that has been given: 80%*(6D made) + 20%*(6D -1). I would certainly give a PP to Chemla but generally the ruling looks OK. So why argue, you might ask? The are several reasons, part of them have already been pointed to by Peter. 1. Herman, Grattan and David know very well how the Committee arrived to this 7IMP result. Most of BLMLers know and understand that also. Herman argued that when someone suggested that 7IMPs should be the AssAS he agreed immediately as he realized that this will be the outcome of letting declarer make 6D 80% of the time and this is exactly the probability he estimated himself. But there is also another side of the coin. There were thousands of words written on this list about the need of "players education". Quite right, too. Most of bridge players don't know the subtleties of the Laws and quite often the knowledge even about the basics is very low. That's why David Stevenson does a series of articles "How the rulings are given" in the Daily Bulletin. That's why it is vital to give a detailed description of the decision making process. Any shortcuts like "7IMPs is what we have finally come to" are, excusez le mot, arrogant to the players and certainly won't give the players any clearer picture of how the laws work. They create an impression that "they do whatever they want". Unfair impression, I am sure. But the AC have their share of blame, at least IM(H)O. 2. The other reason is that no matter how hard the AC tries it will sometimes go wrong. If there is no decision making process, just the outcome (7IMPs in this case) then it is very hard to argue with such a ruling. Did the AC think that there is a 20% chance of Kalish underleading the club ace and that Chemla would certainly go down after a club lead? Or perhaps they thought that Kalish would lead a small club 60% of the time but Chemla would still bring 6D home 33% of the time after a club lead? Nothing about that in the AC ruling. Not even a word about 20% chance assigned to 6D -1. Not a word about the card play after underleading the club ace. Just 7IMPs. 3. Finally, my proposal of the AC decision making procedure: > 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". > No, Konrad, justice is more important than pretty reports to keep BLML > happy. Not BLML, the players. BLMLers know where these mysterious 7IMPS come from. > To force a Committee to do something like this is unjust. There may > always be special cases, and you do not want to limit ACs. Yes, I do want to limit the ACs. I feel a lot safer as a player. I very much prefer to know that the AC is forced to operate along certain procedures and is therefore predictable. I am very far from that certainty right now. This is generally the my view of how directing and the laws should be; "you can't take back your calls; if you claim and you don't say how you are going to win a trick you don't win it". I think that the AC procedures should look very much like computer program; I don't feel safe under the "we make judgments and try to achieve equity" approach. I'm not the only one by the way. David Burn once wrote in another thread: +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ Brian Callaghan, my regular partner, has been claiming in accordance with my proposal all his life, because he believes (foolish man!) that this is the safest thing to do under the present Laws. In his own words: "It's absurd to claim without saying precisely what you're going to do, because under the Laws at the moment, you never know how many tricks some idiots are going to decide you end up with." +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ And I'm sure that Brian Callaghan also has no doubts that Grattan, Herman and David do their best as the members of AC in the World Champinoships. There is just a catogory of people who feel a lot safer under the mechanical laws. I'm one of them. Konrad Ciborowski who has probably exhausted his words limit on BLML for this year :) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 5 09:48:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e84NmSP04583 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 09:48:28 +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-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 e84NmLt04578 for ; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 09:48:22 +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 13W5yL-0008bH-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 00:48:17 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 00:46:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Lightner strikes References: <200009030027.UAA16815@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.20000903211244.013e8cc8@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000903211244.013e8cc8@pop.mindspring.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 <3.0.1.32.20000903211244.013e8cc8@pop.mindspring.com>, Michael S. Dennis writes >At 08:27 PM 9/2/2000 -0400, Steve wrote: >>Sorry, John, I'm being dense and still don't follow you. >> >>If you find out it's Lightner, you will pull to 7NT. Where do the NYPD >>get involved? (Your question is AI, should it matter.) I suppose >>tipping West(?) off to East's diamond void might help him find the >>killing lead against 7NT, but that seems unlikely. > >I THINK the complaint is as follows. Declarer has heard the double (which >he indeed assumes to be Lightner), but has not heard an alert. In his mind, >this is important. Even if, as he suspects, the double may be >lead-directing, it appears LHO is asleep at the switch, in which case he >may well survive when 7nt is failing, not to mention the bonus for making >the contract doubled. In any event, he reasons, he is entitled to act on >the assumption that the double is not Lightner, based on the lack of the >alert. And to ask at this point might easily jeopardize his chance at >making a doubled grand, if he has judged the situation accurately. > >And if he hasn't judged correctly, there's always the chance he can win the >board from a sympathetic TD or AC. > This is precisely the situation I was thinking of. My ruling still stands however (UK permits law 12C3) 80% of 7N=, 20% of 7Dx-1 because I have a sneaking suspicion the guy's trying a double shot. cheers john >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/ -- 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 Sep 5 09:48:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e84Nmnc04590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 09:48:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (omicron.comarch.pl [195.116.125.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e84Nmet04584 for ; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 09:48:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (pc60.krakow.ppp.tpnet.pl [212.160.4.60]) by omicron.comarch.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id C24D8176EE; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 01:45:20 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39B4347D.899374C1@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 01:47:09 +0200 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Gill Cc: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal #3 References: <00b401c0166c$90e85c40$61e236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > If so, I think that the step-by-step written process for AC Procedure > should include the possibility that the AC Chairman gets > expert advice on "how the play by Chemla might go on Cx lead" > before the "inadequately-constituted" (for the purposes of > card play analysis in this particular case) AC meets. Or would > that be inappropriate in some way? > I agree wholehartedly. I recall a ruling from Polish Division One. Cezary Balicki was misinformed by his oponnent and argued that with the correct information he would have found a killing diamond lead against 3NT. The TD could try to work out the chance of a D lead himself; that's what the Maastricht AC did. Instead the TD consulted another expert Andrzej Milde who said that for him there was a 20% chance of a diamond lead. I am sure that the ruling was fairer that way. 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 Sep 5 12:19:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e852J5r04651 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 12:19:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e852Iwt04647 for ; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 12:18:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id WAA26076 for ; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 22:18:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id WAA06008 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Sep 2000 22:18:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 22:18:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200009050218.WAA06008@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL policy on agreements after opponents' irregularity Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > But is a partnership changing from negative to penalty doubles mid-auction > legal in the ACBL? This is exactly the sort of issue on which I am hoping for clarification in mid-September. My personal view is that the auction 1S-1C is not the same as 1S-2C, but it's always possible the ACBL has a different opinion. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 5 14:48:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e854ljG04827 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 14:47:45 +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 e854let04822 for ; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 14:47:40 +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 OAA02330 for ; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 14:43:30 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 05 Sep 2000 15:44:02 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL policy on agreements after opponents' irregularity To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 15:45:35 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 05/09/2000 03:41:09 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: "My personal view is that the auction 1S-1C is not the same as 1S-2C, but it's always possible the ACBL has a different opinion." This brings to mind an auction I had with a strange (in both senses of the word) partner a few years ago. Pard opened a conventional 2D (weak 2 hearts OR weak 2 spades OR strong balanced), RHO passed, I bid a conventional 3H (some length in both majors), LHO passed, pard (holding weak 2 hearts) passed. Now RHO balanced with 2S. I condoned the undercall, and rebid what was now a natural 3H. Our partnership had no explicit or implicit agreement about this sequence. However, pard thought that if I could bid 3H *twice*, it must be mildly invitational. Holding a maximum weak 2, pard raised to 4H. And with a mildly lucky layout of the cards, 10 tricks were there. If this auction had happened in ACBL-land, would the TD rule that either pard or myself "changed our conventional agreements contingent upon an opponent's irregularity"? 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 Sep 5 22:16:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e85CFWw05018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Sep 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 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 e85CFPt05014 for ; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 22:15:26 +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 e85CFK818645 for ; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 08:15:21 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000905080909.00b19de0@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, 05 Sep 2000 08:16:02 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL policy on agreements after opponents' irregularity In-Reply-To: <200009011527.LAA02240@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 11:27 AM 9/1/00, Steve wrote: >Now I have it from Gary Blaiss: the policy on the web site is indeed >obsolete. The new policy is in the "Tech Files." I don't have >personal access to those, but Gary quotes the policy as: > > "A pair may not change their conventional agreements contingent upon > an opponent's irregularity. Natural methods may be altered if they > are otherwise permitted." > >As we can see, the above policy needs some interpretation. Gary is >going to try to clarify once the members of the C&C Committee return >from Maastricht. He still hopes to write a Bulletin article once that >is done, but as we can all imagine, this hasn't been his highest >priority! > >Incidentally, the first answer I got from 'rulings@acbl.org' was that >the policy on the web site was still in force. I appreciate that the >person who initially answered took the trouble to recheck with Gary and >find out the correct information. The policy change occurred in the >spring of 1998. > >I'll let the list know if I hear more from Gary or other official >sources. I find this rather disturbing. The "Tech Files" are available to club managers/directors and TDs; mere players do not have access to them. So what Steve is telling us is that the ACBL effected a significant change in policy that affects what players are or are not allowed to do at the table over two years ago, and hopes to get around to telling their players about it one of these days. Which means that in the interim, TDs/ACs are expected to act as "star chambers", enforcing secret laws of which the violators, who may be punished for breaking them, are perforce ignorant. Simple common sense dictates that no law or policy change should be allowed to go into effect until it has been published in a medium available to the people who are affected by it. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 5 23:59:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e85Dx0405103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 23:59:00 +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 (oe34.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.27]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e85Dwst05099 for ; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 23:58:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 06:58:46 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [195.64.60.246] From: "David Stevenson" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal #3 Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 15:58:53 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Sep 2000 13:58:46.0934 (UTC) FILETIME=[690FF360:01C01741] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- Konrad wrote: I am beginning to think that Herman and you have a wrong idea why I oppose so strongly against this ruling. It is very probable that it is my fault; sadly, my language, unlike Grattan's, is not an example of tact and careful selection of words. It might be worth therefore clarifying the position. Perhaps you imagine that my idea of the Committee at work is something like this: the smoke of cigarettes, the glasses of wine, the roulette wheel and the Chairman announcing "Place your bets, please". The number 7 came out so 7IMPs have been given to the French team. Let me say this: I vehemently object to "not quantifying" on this appeal but I have no doubt that AC tries really hard to give a fair and just ruling in every case. No doubt they tried to do it this time also. One more thing: I agree in general with the ruling that has been given: 80%*(6D made) + 20%*(6D -1). I would certainly give a PP to Chemla but generally the ruling looks OK. So why argue, you might ask? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- How do you know that is how they decided this way? I don't! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- The are several reasons, part of them have already been pointed to by Peter. 1. Herman, Grattan and David know very well how the Committee arrived to this 7IMP result. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- I have **no idea** how they reached their result. I was not involved in the appeal and have not discussed it. I am as in the dark as you are. In my view it is nealry always better to show the calculation but I have no idea why this AC did not. The only thing I do know is that it was a *deliberate decision* by the Committee not to publish how they arrived at the result. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- Most of BLMLers know and understand that also. Herman argued that when someone suggested that 7IMPs should be the AssAS he agreed immediately as he realized that this will be the outcome of letting declarer make 6D 80% of the time and this is exactly the probability he estimated himself. But there is also another side of the coin. There were thousands of words written on this list about the need of "players education". Quite right, too. Most of bridge players don't know the subtleties of the Laws and quite often the knowledge even about the basics is very low. That's why David Stevenson does a series of articles "How the rulings are given" in the Daily Bulletin. That's why it is vital to give a detailed description of the decision making process. Any shortcuts like "7IMPs is what we have finally come to" are, excusez le mot, arrogant to the players and certainly won't give the players any clearer picture of how the laws work. They create an impression that "they do whatever they want". Unfair impression, I am sure. But the AC have their share of blame, at least IM(H)O. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- You seem to have completely missed the point. In nearly every case the AC write-ups are designed to educate. I have adeed explanatory notes, sometimes on the instruction of the Chairman. You seem to be talking as though Maastricht #3 is the norm: it is not, it is a very great exception to the rules. To say it is arrogant is presuming you know why *this* AC decided not to explain when all the others have explained. Are you sure that it is not arrogant of you to assume that the special reason this AC had [whatever it is] is not adequate? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- 2. The other reason is that no matter how hard the AC tries it will sometimes go wrong. If there is no decision making process, just the outcome (7IMPs in this case) then it is very hard to argue with such a ruling. Did the AC think that there is a 20% chance of Kalish underleading the club ace and that Chemla would certainly go down after a club lead? Or perhaps they thought that Kalish would lead a small club 60% of the time but Chemla would still bring 6D home 33% of the time after a club lead? Nothing about that in the AC ruling. Not even a word about 20% chance assigned to 6D -1. Not a word about the card play after underleading the club ace. Just 7IMPs. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- Fine. But until you know why they did not publish the reasons and explanation how can you assume their reasons are wrong? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- 3. Finally, my proposal of the AC decision making procedure: > 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". > No, Konrad, justice is more important than pretty reports to keep BLML > happy. Not BLML, the players. BLMLers know where these mysterious 7IMPS come from. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- All right, all BLMLers know that except one. Me. I do not know where the 7 imps came from. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- > To force a Committee to do something like this is unjust. There may > always be special cases, and you do not want to limit ACs. Yes, I do want to limit the ACs. I feel a lot safer as a player. I very much prefer to know that the AC is forced to operate along certain procedures and is therefore predictable. I am very far from that certainty right now. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- OK, but if you start tying AC's hands, and put reporting ahead of justice, then yopu reduce justice. In the world today, the media have too much power anyway. It is helpful to assume that an AC that has a special reason not to follow normal procedure has a reason rather than to assume they are wrong. -- 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 Sep 5 23:59:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e85DxE805109 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 23:59:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e85Dx8t05105 for ; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 23:59:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive41k.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.16.52]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA15546; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 09:59:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001401c01741$e0d8edc0$3410f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Hirsch Davis" , Subject: Re: [BLML] Card played or not Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 10:02:05 -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 Come on now guys...call off the dogs. IF the laws permit him to win a trick in this manner, is he not obliged to attempt to do so? Is this any worse than accepting the most favourable option on an OLOOT or in a penalty card situation? It is his opponent's gratuitous exclamation that has led to the situation. I think EK would have felt that taking this advantage was no more improper than sportsmanlike dumping, and have sought to address the weakness in law or COC that allowed it rather than penalize the individual who tried to win according to the laws as written. Frankly, a bad board may teach declarer to keep his mouth shut. I would not ban anyone unless the degree of nastiness required me to do so under the proprieties. (The fact that friends and gentlepersons might be disinclined to take such an advantage does not justify penalizing one who may be playing for blood. I would however be less likely to invite him along socially after the session.) Crig Senior -----Original Message----- From: Hirsch Davis To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Saturday, September 02, 2000 4:26 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Card played or not > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Adam Beneschan" >To: >Cc: >Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 7:49 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Card played or not > > >> >> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >> > Dear blmlists, >> > >> > An interesting case came on the scene yesterday night. I was unable to >find >> > the right article in TFLB. Please help me. >> > >> > South plays a heart contract. After several tricks have been played, the >> > remaining spades are : >> > >> > West North East South >> > >> > AQ10 Jxxx x x >> > >> > East plays the remaining spade. >> > South exclaims : 'a spade !' before he even played from his hand. >> > >> > Now West quickly plays spade 10 and demands that a small spade be played >> > from the table, since 'a spade' means a small one (L 46 B2). >> > >> > As a director, how would you rule ? >> >> I'm not sure what Law I'd apply, but I think West is guilty of bridge >> lawyering in the first degree, trying to gain from technical legal >> maneuvering instead of playing bridge. > >Agreed. > >>Therefore, I'd rule that no >> card was played from dummy; > >True, if Declarer did not in fact intend to play from Dummy. However, even >if Declarer did intend the play, there's 47B: "A played card may be >withdrawn to correct an illegal or simultaneous play..." So, it looks like >Declarer can withdraw the card played from Dummy, whether he intended to >play it or not. If Declarer actually intended the play, it represents a >violation of 44B: "After the lead, each player in turn plays a card...". >Since no penalty is specified for violating this, we can adjust using one of >the catchalls (72B1 or 12A1), should it be necessary. > >>I'd levy an appropriate procedural penalty >> on West; and then since West played out of turn, the person who will >> have to substitute for West for the rest of the session is required to >> play the 10. >> >> -- Adam >> -- > >I'm not sure that bridge-lawyering is sufficient cause to kick a player out >of the game, as tempting as it might be. Best to let him finish the session >with a large PP, to prevent disruption of the movement. In some cases >bridge-lawyering can be cured by judicious application of PPs. However, if >he's a hard core offender, he can be quietly executed after the game, when >it will be easier to get rid of the body. > >Regards, > >Hirsch > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Sep 6 00:14:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e85EEiY05136 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 00:14:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e85EEat05132 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 00:14:37 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e85EEgk09155 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 10:14:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200009051414.e85EEgk09155@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL policy on agreements after opponents' irregularity To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 10:14:42 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "richard.hills@immi.gov.au" at Sep 05, 2000 03:45:35 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes: > > > If this auction had happened in ACBL-land, would the TD rule that either > pard or myself "changed our conventional agreements contingent upon an > opponent's irregularity"? There's an old story about a Stayman/Mitchell auction. They had a long, very artificial auction and just as they had come to rest in a thin (but making) slam one of the opponents came in with a *very* insufficient call (something like a 3C overcall of 6D). The undercall was accepted and the partnership started cue bidding again -- getting around to showing specific queens and jacks. Both of them were on the same page in what *can't* have been a discussed auction. No discussion of their having an illegal agreement. They bid to a substantially better contract and went down when the trump suit broke very badly. -- 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 Sep 6 02:08:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e85G7No05191 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 02:07:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e85G7Gt05187 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 02:07:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcaug09.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.64.9]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA01780 for ; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 12:07:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <002201c01753$37288260$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <001401c01741$e0d8edc0$3410f7a5@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Card played or not Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 12:06:13 -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: "Craig Senior" To: "Hirsch Davis" ; Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 10:02 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Card played or not > Come on now guys...call off the dogs. IF the laws permit him to win a trick > in this manner, is he not obliged to attempt to do so? Is this any worse > than accepting the most favourable option on an OLOOT or in a penalty card > situation? If W had actually believed that Declarer was calling from a card from Dummy, then Declarer himself has not yet played. Why has W detached a card from his own hand? Since when do the Laws permit playing a card out of turn in an attempt to prevent Declarer from changing the play in Dummy? Certainly W is entitled to summon the TD for a ruling on whether or not Declarer has played a card from Dummy, and win the trick if the TD so rules. However, W has gone a bit beyond this. He did not summon the TD until he had already played out of turn himself, in an attempt to "accept" the played card from Dummy (if he had summoned the TD, the TD would have found that there was no mechanism for accepting this play in the Laws, and would be scratching his chin at some of the situations omitted in the section on plays out of turn, as some of us are). So yes, it is much worse. We are entitled to accept the most favorable option to us under the Laws. We are not entitled to create an option by breaking the Laws ourselves, nor should we try to establish such an option in the absence of the TD. If W had summoned the TD at Declarer's explanation and received the same ruling, we would simply be chatting about how bad the ruling was. >It is his opponent's gratuitous exclamation that has led to the > situation. As Alain explained, the exclamation was not gratuitous. Declarer had both hands full, and was designating the card he would play from his own hand, in turn. From the posts so far, it appears that the TD did not investigate this possibility, nor did the TD give Declarer the opportunity to mention it. >I think EK would have felt that taking this advantage was no more > improper than sportsmanlike dumping, and have sought to address the weakness > in law or COC that allowed it rather than penalize the individual who tried > to win according to the laws as written. That is the error in your argument. The individual did not attempt to win the trick according to the Laws as written, but committed his own infraction to try and win the trick before summoning the TD to rule on the "infraction". Yes, if the TD had been summoned and ruled that the small spade had been played from Dummy, W would have had a perfect right to play the ten at this turn. That is not the behavior that is at issue. I, and at least some others, feel that playing out of turn to try and grab the disputed trick before summoning the TD is a bit more improper than you seem to allow for. >Frankly, a bad board may teach > declarer to keep his mouth shut. If we are to believe the posts, Declarer had his hands full after a long pause by E, and could not play his singleton in the appropriate manner without hesitation. Since it was Declarer's turn to play from hand, he may have felt that the fact he was playing from hand was self-evident. >I would not ban anyone unless the degree of > nastiness required me to do so under the proprieties. I agree, and was commenting that even for the infraction committed, I felt that the suggestion of removing the player from the game was a bit severe. I do agree with a hefty PP to W. My last sentence was written in jest (even if it was in poor taste), as I hope most people could recognize, even without the smileys. >(The fact that friends > and gentlepersons might be disinclined to take such an advantage does not > justify penalizing one who may be playing for blood. Nobody was suggesting that W be penalized to "playing for blood". I would suggest that W be penalized (and rather heavily) for committing his own infraction to try and establish the trick before the TD was summoned. If W had summoned the TD at the time Declarer appeared to be calling a card from Dummy, I would have no argument with his attempt to win the trick, or with his actually winning it if the TD gave the wrong ruling. >I would however be less > likely to invite him along socially after the session.) > > Crig Senior > Regards, Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 6 02:37:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e85GamT05219 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 02:36:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e85Gaft05215 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 02:36:42 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id F40B7489F9; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 12:34:32 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 14:27:46 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: [BLML] OKbridge Chief Ethics Director Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I received this a month ago and have been meaning to pass it on. I asked and was told by OKBridge that's it's appropriate to post it here. It's no secret - they've announced on their web site that they're looking. AW Chief Ethics Director Position In order to address concerns of our membership, and to further improve our service, we will be making major changes in the way we handle cheating accusations and complaints. The latest version of a proposed document describing these changes was posted on our website on June 7, 2000. We are now putting the final touches on the completed guidelines. In addition to member comments on the written plan, we asked members to privately nominate other members they felt would be qualified to serve on a panel of investigators. Your name was received as a potential panelist. We would like to request your assistance in our search for the Chief Ethics Director. The list of responsibilities for this position include: Review and approve applications to the pool of panelists. Assign cases to be investigated to panelists. Set up investigative panels. Ensure adequate documentation of cases. Ensure that due process is observed. Confer with company attorneys when issues arise that might create liability or that otherwise raise legal concerns. Communicate results to accused. Provide CEO with regular reports on the status and operation of the C&E process. The ideal candidate will have the following qualifications: (a) a long-time OKbridge member, (b) a thorough understanding of the laws of bridge and a reputation for fairness, (c) a former bridge club owner or some other evidence of a customer-oriented approach to solving problems, and (d) a good level of computer literacy. We envision this as a part-time job that could be handled from home. However, initially, we expect several months of program design time at our San Diego office. If you know of someone who you think would ideal for this position, we would be grateful if you would forward this announcement to him or her or send us their name and email address and we will contact them. All interested parties should submit their resume, list of references, and salary requirements to mailto:ethicsdirector@okbridge.com. Thank you for your assistance. OKbridge, Inc. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 6 03:29:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e85HShZ05287 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 03:28:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e85HSat05283 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 03:28:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.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 e85HSWJ17715 for ; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 13:28:32 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000905132609.00b152f0@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, 05 Sep 2000 13:29:13 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Fwd: Re: [BLML] ACBL policy on agreements after opponents' irregularity Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk My apologies to Wayne, to whom I accidentally replied privately when I intended to reply to BLML, for my having sent him two copies. Here it is for everyone else... >At 05:32 AM 9/4/00, Wayne wrote: > >>From: "Tim West-meads" >> > >> > I think the ACBL is saying (or should be) you may not play conventions >> > that apply *only* after opponent's infractions. Ie if you are playing >> > penalty doubles you may not agree -ve double after 1S-1H. >> >>But what they say is that the conventional agreements that a partnership has >>"may not change". That is, IMO the conventional agreements you have over >>legal interference must remain unchanged over "insufficient" interference. > >I can buy this if "conventional agreements... 'may not change'" means that >you may not have conventional agreements about the meaning of calls over >insufficient bids, which seems to be Tim's position. But there must still >be room for players to exercise simple logic. And they must be allowed to >do this not only over accepted insufficient bids, but also after corrected >insufficient bids. > >Obvious logic, for example, suggests that it would be ludicrous to double >1H for penalties when one has a 99.5% probability of being able to double >2H for penalties. So if I'm playing negative doubles, and the auction >goes 1S-1H, not accepted, corrected to 2H-X, I will assume that that's for >penalties despite the fact that 1S-2H-X would be negative, because I know >that partner had 1S-1H-X, negative, available. This is based purely on >bridge logic, and has nothing to do with any "special agreement", explicit >or otherwise. There is therefore no possible legal justification for its >being regulated. > >Players must be allowed to think. They cannot be required to invest >partner's call with a specific meaning, regardless of what it would mean >under normal circumstances, when abnormal circumstances have rendered that >meaning illogical. 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 Sep 6 07:50:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e85LnU105400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 07:49:30 +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 e85LnMt05396 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 07:49:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA04833; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 14:49:14 -0700 Message-Id: <200009052149.OAA04833@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL policy on agreements after opponents' irregularity In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 05 Sep 2000 13:29:13 PDT." <4.3.2.7.1.20000905132609.00b152f0@127.0.0.1> Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 14:49:15 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > >I can buy this if "conventional agreements... 'may not change'" means that > >you may not have conventional agreements about the meaning of calls over > >insufficient bids, which seems to be Tim's position. But there must still > >be room for players to exercise simple logic. And they must be allowed to > >do this not only over accepted insufficient bids, but also after corrected > >insufficient bids. > > > >Obvious logic, for example, suggests that it would be ludicrous to double > >1H for penalties when one has a 99.5% probability of being able to double > >2H for penalties. So if I'm playing negative doubles, and the auction > >goes 1S-1H, not accepted, corrected to 2H-X, I will assume that that's for > >penalties despite the fact that 1S-2H-X would be negative, because I know > >that partner had 1S-1H-X, negative, available. This is based purely on > >bridge logic, and has nothing to do with any "special agreement", explicit > >or otherwise. There is therefore no possible legal justification for its > >being regulated. This logic is not impeccable. You're saying that if, without discussion, your partner refused to accept the 1H bid and then doubled 2H, you'd be able to determine, just from bridge logic, that he intended to make a penalty double, since he could have accepted 1H and doubled to make a negative double. But that's not the only reason for refusing to accept an insufficient bid. Partner may simply have decided that he didn't want fourth hand to get a minor-suit lead-director in more cheaply than the rest of the field would be able to. -- 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 Sep 6 10:41:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e860f4W05468 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 10:41:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e860ewt05460 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 10:40:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.117] (d185fca75.rochester.rr.com [24.95.202.117]) by mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA04560; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 20:32:50 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20000905080909.00b19de0@127.0.0.1> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000905080909.00b19de0@127.0.0.1> Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 20:35:29 -0400 To: Eric Landau From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL policy on agreements after opponents' irregularity Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >Simple common sense dictates that no law or policy change should be >allowed to go into effect until it has been published in a medium >available to the people who are affected by it. I am wholeheartedly in agreement with that. Now, how do we get the ACBL to actually *do* 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: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBObWSlL2UW3au93vOEQJIhQCgvzmaZHOEQzlaBhK7Hxde99rKassAoOZ2 RD5Jw4tj7TNBKIDZDRgEuIn/ =lvID -----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 Sep 6 10:51:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e860pHX05480 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 10:51:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e860pBt05476 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 10:51:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.117] (d185fca75.rochester.rr.com [24.95.202.117]) by mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA03244; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 20:47:58 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 20:44:19 -0400 To: "David Stevenson" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal #3 Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > It is helpful to assume that an AC that has a special >reason not to follow normal procedure has a reason rather than to assume >they are wrong. Indeed. However, the fact they have (apparently deliberately) concealed both the method by which they arrived at 7 imps and the reason for that concealment is, to say the least, curious. 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 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBObWU8b2UW3au93vOEQKJEACgl3cwlFtwV6HE6f+pmBGq7Gb47mEAoN3+ xZzNV0NvXasClb5iZ02sHjE7 =GB/Y -----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 Sep 6 15:24:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e865NAM05601 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 15:23:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e865N3t05597 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 15:23:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from freenet10.carleton.ca (freenet10 [134.117.136.30]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/NCF_f1_v3.00) with ESMTP id BAA15777 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 01:22:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/NCF-Sun-Client) id BAA10631; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 01:22:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 01:22:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200009060522.BAA10631@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Alas, Poor Yorick, I Knew Him Well... Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk #25 S 4 N E S W dlr: N H A82 P P P 1N EW vul D AK732 2D(1) P 2S P matchpoints C T872 P X P P S AK96 S QJ87 3D P P P H KJ96 H T7543 D T9 D Q (1) alerted, explained C KJ6 D Q53 as capelletti (sp?), S T532 both majors H Q D J8654 result: +130 NS C A94 If this hand appears familiar, well, I'm glad you're reading RGB! ;-) I was called at the end of the hand. The opponents claimed they had been damaged by the auction. I determined that the explanation given did correspond to the CC, therefore no MI. I then looked at possible UI, and determined that N may have used UI in choosing his 3D call. N said that he had already acknowledged the UI by passing 2S, but that he felt that the AI (the double) was what suggested his 3D call; also, he knew his partner couldn't have a good 6 card spade suit: no original 2S bid. I told the parties I would look at the hand, and make a ruling. I looked at the problem, and decided that passing 2S was still an LA. I confirmed this by asking a couple of local experts (ACBL; one has about 4000 mps, the other about 6500, both experienced on committees) whether they thought pass (or any other call) was a logical alternative to 3D: they did. I therefore changed the result to 2Sx-4, +800 NS. I told NS they had the right to appeal. They declined (they said they don't appeal "club games"). However, N, a regionally ranked ACBL director, said that I should post the hand here on BLML (he used to be a member, but was truly too busy to continue, and relies on me to pass him any interesting arguements). I would then be told/have explained to me why I am, as he put it, "completely wrong". Have at me, friends: I can take it! Tony (aka ac342) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 6 19:35:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e869YMP05864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 19:34:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f87.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.87]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e869YGt05860 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 19:34:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 02:34:08 -0700 Received: from 192.160.109.219 by lw7fd.law7.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 06 Sep 2000 09:34:08 GMT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.219] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Alas, Poor Yorick, I Knew Him Well... Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 09:34:08 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Sep 2000 09:34:08.0607 (UTC) FILETIME=[9B4146F0:01C017E5] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) >Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca >To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au >Subject: [BLML] Alas, Poor Yorick, I Knew Him Well... >Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 01:22:53 -0400 (EDT) > >#25 S 4 N E S W >dlr: N H A82 P P P 1N >EW vul D AK732 2D(1) P 2S P >matchpoints C T872 P X P P > S AK96 S QJ87 3D P P P > H KJ96 H T7543 > D T9 D Q (1) alerted, explained > C KJ6 D Q53 as capelletti (sp?), > S T532 both majors > H Q > D J8654 result: +130 NS > C A94 > > If this hand appears familiar, well, I'm glad you're reading RGB! ;-) >I was called at the end of the hand. The opponents claimed they had >been damaged by the auction. I determined that the explanation given >did correspond to the CC, therefore no MI. I then looked at possible >UI, and determined that N may have used UI in choosing his 3D call. >N said that he had already acknowledged the UI by passing 2S, but >that he felt that the AI (the double) was what suggested his 3D call; >also, he knew his partner couldn't have a good 6 card spade suit: no >original 2S bid. I told the parties I would look at the hand, and make >a ruling. > I looked at the problem, and decided that passing 2S was still an LA. >I confirmed this by asking a couple of local experts (ACBL; one has >about 4000 mps, the other about 6500, both experienced on committees) >whether they thought pass (or any other call) was a logical alternative >to 3D: they did. I therefore changed the result to 2Sx-4, +800 NS. > I told NS they had the right to appeal. > They declined (they said they don't appeal "club games"). However, >N, a regionally ranked ACBL director, said that I should post the hand >here on BLML (he used to be a member, but was truly too busy >to continue, and relies on me to pass him any interesting arguements). >I would then be told/have explained to me why I am, as he put it, >"completely wrong". Have at me, friends: I can take it! > Tony (aka ac342) He may well have a long wait. So South *can't* have six spades: There's no reason why he can't have five: Three quick tricks in the North hand, three trump tricks - voila! North gets out for -300 after his truly dreadful overcall. A result, I'd say to myself as I was considering the matter. What I wouldn't say to myself was "Oh dear, South has bid spades and may have no diamonds at all, as well as very little on the aces and kings front, but I'll rescue myself to a higher level anyway." Next time that you see North tell him a) you were right, and that I said so (unlikely to cut much ice, I'll agree) and b) to stop being so patronising. Just because he directs doesn't mean that he can't be wrong. On this occasion he's very wrong, and being a prat about it to boot. Adieu Norman. _________________________________________________________________________ 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 Sep 6 21:10:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e86BAWd05914 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 21:10:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e86BAQt05910 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 21:10:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.0.ap (resu)) id NAA25331; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 13:11:05 +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 NAA12172; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 13:10:02 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000906131953.008f0a70@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 13:19:53 +0200 To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Alas, Poor Yorick, I Knew Him Well... In-Reply-To: <200009060522.BAA10631@freenet10.carleton.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:22 6/09/00 -0400, A. L. Edwards wrote: >#25 S 4 N E S W >dlr: N H A82 P P P 1N >EW vul D AK732 2D(1) P 2S P >matchpoints C T872 P X P P > S AK96 S QJ87 3D P P P > H KJ96 H T7543 > D T9 D Q (1) alerted, explained > C KJ6 D Q53 as capelletti (sp?), > S T532 both majors > H Q > D J8654 result: +130 NS > C A94 > > If this hand appears familiar, well, I'm glad you're reading RGB! ;-) >I was called at the end of the hand. The opponents claimed they had >been damaged by the auction. I determined that the explanation given >did correspond to the CC, therefore no MI. I then looked at possible >UI, and determined that N may have used UI in choosing his 3D call. >N said that he had already acknowledged the UI by passing 2S, but >that he felt that the AI (the double) was what suggested his 3D call; AG : this is the key point. If North wished to remove 2SX, jumping if necessary into the fire, he would be better advised to bid 3C, or perhaps 2NT, wait for the double and then redouble. The fact that he instead choose to remove to 3D may only be prompted by the fact that he knew that partner didn't know he had diamonds, thus it it use of UI. I would have let 2SX stand in any case, the results of your enquiry make it obvious, but I like to have a good argument to show North that his removal was still using UI. 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 Sep 6 21:15:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e86BFXV05932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 21:15:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e86BFTt05928 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 21:15:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ta704437 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 21:06:08 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-003-p-213-177.tmns.net.au ([203.54.213.177]) by mail7.bigpond.com (Claudes-Sparking-MailRouter V2.9b 15/5507001); 06 Sep 2000 21:06:07 Message-ID: <008701c01796$62ae57a0$b1d536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Alas, Poor Yorick, I Knew Him Well... Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 10:07:02 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A Edwards wrote: >#25 S 4 N E S W >dlr: N H A82 P P P 1N >EW vul D AK732 2D(1) P 2S P >matchpoints C T872 P X P P > S AK96 S QJ87 3D P P P > H KJ96 H T7543 > D T9 D Q (1) alerted, explained > C KJ6 D Q53 as capelletti (sp?), > S T532 both majors > H Q > D J8654 result: +130 NS > C A94 > > If this hand appears familiar, well, I'm glad you're reading RGB! ;-) >I was called at the end of the hand. The opponents claimed they had >been damaged by the auction. I determined that the explanation given >did correspond to the CC, therefore no MI. I then looked at possible >UI, and determined that N may have used UI in choosing his 3D call. >N said that he had already acknowledged the UI by passing 2S, but >that he felt that the AI (the double) was what suggested his 3D call; >also, he knew his partner couldn't have a good 6 card spade suit: no >original 2S bid. I told the parties I would look at the hand, and make >a ruling. > I looked at the problem, and decided that passing 2S was still an LA. >I confirmed this by asking a couple of local experts (ACBL; one has >about 4000 mps, the other about 6500, both experienced on committees) >whether they thought pass (or any other call) was a logical alternative >to 3D: they did. I therefore changed the result to 2Sx-4, +800 NS. > I told NS they had the right to appeal. > They declined (they said they don't appeal "club games"). However, >N, a regionally ranked ACBL director, said that I should post the hand >here on BLML (he used to be a member, but was truly too busy >to continue, and relies on me to pass him any interesting arguments). >I would then be told/have explained to me why I am, as he put it, >"completely wrong". Have at me, friends: I can take it! > Tony (aka ac342) Maybe North accrued all his masterpoints and knowledge in the dim distant past when the Laws were different. This may be why he doesn't realise that nowadays he is completely wrong. (1) Adjusting the score is automatic, because passing out 2SX is not just a logical alternative, it is the logical alternative after the UI. (2) What to adjust to? Yes, a diamond lead may well lead to 2SX down four. Therefore adjusting to 800 due to the UI seems right. (3) My only concern is the widespread practice, even at the highest levels of: "I determined that the explanation given did correspond to the CC, therefore no MI." This procedure is risky because often one member of a partnership fills in the CC so the entry thereon reflects only the understanding of that one player rather than the agreement of both players. I'm just trying to say that I think this procedure by the Director, without asking the player whose handwriting is not on the CC, can lead to error. Not that this it did in this case. 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 Sep 6 21:26:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e86BQMR05945 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 21:26:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e86BQCt05941 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 21:26:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.0.ap (guppy)) id NAA27602; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 13:24:41 +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 NAA20487; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 13:25:47 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000906133537.008f99b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 13:35:37 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] how U is the I ? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear BLMLists, A case happened on monday, that made me wonder what exactly is constituting the offence of UI. West leads D8 (playing primary attitude) against 4 spades : (Dummy) 10xxxx x AQxxx xx N S 1NT (15-17) 2H 3S 4S The declarer takes East's ten with the king, and plays a heart from his hand. As East wins the trick and considers his return, West detaches a card from his hand and puts it face down. Of course West's behavior is incorrect. But : a) could this be suggesting that East play a diamond back ? b) could this be suggesting that East play a club back ? c) if East finds the appropriate return, would you penalize East/West on UI lines ? (of course, we would at least give West -a long-time beginner- an official warning against readying his card, perhaps a PP) At the table, the return was a small club, which was what West expected. On being summoned and explained the case, I said to the NOS that I could not do anything because the mannerism suggested diamonds, if anything. 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 Sep 6 22:11:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e86CBCM06018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 22:11:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e86CB3t06014 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 22:11:04 +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 e86CAw040426 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 08:10:59 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000906075723.00b167f0@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, 06 Sep 2000 08:11:42 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL policy on agreements after opponents' irregularity In-Reply-To: <200009052149.OAA04833@mailhub.irvine.com> 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 05:49 PM 9/5/00, Adam wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > > >Obvious logic, for example, suggests that it would be ludicrous to double > > >1H for penalties when one has a 99.5% probability of being able to double > > >2H for penalties. So if I'm playing negative doubles, and the auction > > >goes 1S-1H, not accepted, corrected to 2H-X, I will assume that that's > for > > >penalties despite the fact that 1S-2H-X would be negative, because I know > > >that partner had 1S-1H-X, negative, available. This is based purely on > > >bridge logic, and has nothing to do with any "special agreement", > explicit > > >or otherwise. There is therefore no possible legal justification for its > > >being regulated. > >This logic is not impeccable. You're saying that if, without >discussion, your partner refused to accept the 1H bid and then doubled >2H, you'd be able to determine, just from bridge logic, that he >intended to make a penalty double, since he could have accepted 1H and >doubled to make a negative double. But that's not the only reason for >refusing to accept an insufficient bid. Partner may simply have >decided that he didn't want fourth hand to get a minor-suit >lead-director in more cheaply than the rest of the field would be able >to. I don't claim that my logic is impeccable, or even correct. The point, of course, is that if I believe it to be correct and choose to assume that partner has followed similar logic and to base my subsequent actions on that assumption, I must be free to do so, notwithstanding that in doing so I am ascribing a different meaning to the auction 1S-1H/2H-X than I would to 1S-2H-X. Now that I have expounded this particular line of logic to all of BLML, however, I fear that I may have created several hundred partnership agreements about actions over an opponent's irregularity, which are prima facie illegal in ACBL competition (not dissimilar to Herman's "agreement" with the rest of us regarding the type of hands on which he is likely to psych a 1H opening, also prima facie illegal in the ACBL), and in doing so may have "poisoned" all those potential partnerships should the situation arise. 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 Sep 6 22:31:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e86CVco06062 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 22:31:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e86CVWt06058 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 22:31:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id wa035902 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 22:31:46 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-225-31.tmns.net.au ([203.54.225.31]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-Attentive-MailRouter V2.9b 13/4422016); 06 Sep 2000 22:31:45 Message-ID: <008f01c017a2$5830ae20$1fe136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] how U is the I ? Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 11:32:39 +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 >Dear BLMLists, > >A case happened on monday, that made me wonder what exactly is constituting >the offence of UI. > >West leads D8 (playing primary attitude) against 4 spades : > > (Dummy) > 10xxxx > x > AQxxx > xx > > N S > > 1NT (15-17) > 2H 3S > 4S > >The declarer takes East's ten with the king, and plays a heart from his >hand. As East wins the trick and considers his return, West detaches >a card from his hand and puts it face down. > >Of course West's behavior is incorrect. But : > >a) could this be suggesting that East play a diamond back ? >b) could this be suggesting that East play a club back ? >c) if East finds the appropriate return, would you penalize East/West >on UI lines ? > >(of course, we would at least give West -a long-time beginner- an >official warning against readying his card, perhaps a PP) > >At the table, the return was a small club, which was what West >expected. On being summoned and explained the case, I said >to the NOS that I could not do anything because the mannerism >suggested diamonds, if anything. If a diamond back were right, mightn't declarer have won DA and led a trump from dummy? Of course the answer to this question depends on what the full hand was. 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 Sep 6 22:36:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e86Cae606074 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 22:36:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e86CaYt06070 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 22:36:34 +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 e86CaU041867 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 08:36:30 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000906082514.00b147c0@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, 06 Sep 2000 08:37:13 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] how U is the I ? In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000906133537.008f99b0@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 07:35 AM 9/6/00, alain wrote: >West leads D8 (playing primary attitude) against 4 spades : > > (Dummy) > 10xxxx > x > AQxxx > xx > > N S > > 1NT (15-17) > 2H 3S > 4S > >The declarer takes East's ten with the king, and plays a heart from his >hand. As East wins the trick and considers his return, West detaches a card >from his hand and puts it face down. > >Of course West's behavior is incorrect. But : > >a) could this be suggesting that East play a diamond back ? Possibly. >b) could this be suggesting that East play a club back ? Possibly. But it could also be suggesting a spade or a heart. >c) if East finds the appropriate return, would you penalize East/West on UI >lines ? No. There may be some hands on which West's action would demonstrably suggest a specific return, but I don't see this being one of them. Under the 1987 laws, there are many in ACBL-land (myself not among them) who would have penalized, on the grounds that once East finds the right return, it would not be unreasonable to assume that it was suggested by West's action, in effect giving East credit for an ability to correctly interpret West's mannerisms that the TD or AC, not being West's (possibly regular) partner, lack. But I believe that such an interpretation has now been specifically precluded by the changing of "reasonably" to "demonstrably" in L16A in 1997. >(of course, we would at least give West -a long-time beginner- an official >warning against readying his card, perhaps a PP) > >At the table, the return was a small club, which was what West expected. On >being summoned and explained the case, I said to the NOS that I could not >do anything because the mannerism suggested diamonds, if anything. I agree that if it suggested any one suit in particular, it would be diamonds. My first inclination is that it doesn't, and I wouldn't adjust on a diamond return either, but if West had returned a diamond successfully I can imagine that the forthcoming discussion could conceivably change my mind. 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 Sep 6 23:16:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e86DGFX06105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 23:16:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e86DGBt06101 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 23:16:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ea036586 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 23:11:10 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-225-31.tmns.net.au ([203.54.225.31]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-Silly-MailRouter V2.9b 13/4430696); 06 Sep 2000 23:11:09 Message-ID: <004901c017a7$d8f9ca00$1fe136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] ACBL Alerts Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 12:12:02 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Just thought I'd post some current material about the ACBL Alert Procedures, mostly from the COI's website. Even though some BLMLers won't be interested, a few North Americans might find it interesting: The ACBL Board s self-imposed three-year moratorium on changes in the Alert system has expired, and the standing Conventions & Competition Committee has some proposals which, this fall, they are quite likely to ask the Board to adopt. The committee probably will propose two exceptions to the general rule of delaying Alerts of calls above 3NT (when opener has rebid): both a double of a forcing bid which asks for a lead in a suit other then the one doubled AND a pass of a forcing bid which asks that that suit be led, would require an immediate Alert. Steve Willner comments: >"As I understand it, both the above are already alertable. > It is only _bids_ above 3NT that do not require normal alerts. > Passes, doubles, and redoubles that require alerts are still > alertable even if above 3NT. > >It's interesting that the committee apparently doesn't know >its own rule. >From the online ACBL ALERT CHA|RT (Sept 15, 1997): "Alertable bids (the alerts for doubles, redoubles and passes are ALWAYS immediate, never delayed) that are not to be alerted until after the auction is completed are Any conventional call above the level of 3 notrump starting with opener's rebid, in particular an unusual Ace-asking bid (including responses thereto and continuations thereafter)." >From the current online ACBL ALERT PROCEDURE: "1-Pass-4 (splinter bid)-Dbl If this double asks for a club lead, no Alert is required. If this double asks for the lead of a diamond or a heart, an Alert IS required." Back to the ACBL's current proposed changes: No Alert would be required of any double except for those carrying highly unusual meanings. (Examples would be provided.) A strong 1NT rebid by opener might require an Alert, but a 1NT or 2NT normal rebid that may contain one or two four-card majors need not be Alerted. This also applies to 1NT or 2NT responses that may contain 4-card major(s). No Alert would be required after a natural jump raise following an intervening double or bid. ALL natural 1NT openings and overcalls would have point ranges Announced by partner. ALL natural opening two-bids and jump overcalls (at any level) would the Announced by partner as weak or intermediate or strong. A cue-bid would be Alerted only if the meaning is highly unusual or unexpected. (Examples given.) A box might be added to the convention card for a check-mark by any pair whose carding could vary during the hand. And a pre-Alert of some kind would be required by those leading low from a doubleton. The committeemembers are Gary Blaiss, Bart Bramley, Rich Colker, Joan Gerard, Fred Gitelman, Bob Hamman, Chip Martel, Peggy Sutherlin, Howard Weinstein and Sol Weinstein, with Mr. Bramley serving as chairman. He says that our committee thinks that these changes will streamline and simplify the Alert process. We cannot guarantee that all of the changes will work as we intend, but this should be a big step in the right direction. Barbara Seagram of Toronto asks that the Board not make any changes at this time. It has become increasingly difficult to teach the game of bridge because of all the complexities. Directing the game is very tough because of all the rules and the constant revisions in the Alert/Announce procedure. The average club player is SO weary of changes in procedure. Studying new systems and trying to keep up with changes in structure in modern bridge bidding is tough enough. Many simply give up, exhausted and discouraged. We have no problem attracting new members. To get them to renew is almost impossible, with so much competing for their energies and time. Joan Gerard explained: The reasoning behind the expansion of the 1NT Announcement was that right now so many people ask what is your range? when they don t hear an Announcement. And there are so many questions now being asked about two-bids that Announcing them might eliminate the need for so many questions. I find that the vast majority of the average players do what they want at the table and no one really cares." Posted to BLML as a possible source of discussion by 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 Sep 6 23:55:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e86DsnH06128 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 23:54:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e86Dsgt06124 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 23:54:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d205.iae.nl [212.61.3.205]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 2E93420F50 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 15:54:14 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <009701c0180a$3002bfc0$cd033dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL policy on agreements after opponents' irregularity Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 14:36:57 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, September 04, 2000 4:54 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL policy on agreements after opponents' irregularity > > The ACBL rule was quoted by Steve Willner: > > "A pair may not change their conventional agreements contingent upon > an opponent's irregularity. Natural methods may be altered if they > are otherwise permitted." > > Let us assume that a partnership is playing the popular conventional > agreement *negative doubles*. > > An opponent makes an insufficient bid. This is condoned, and doubled. By > bridge logic, the double of an insufficient bid is a *penalty* double (as > the infractor is not given the option of changing their insufficient bid to > a Pass). Why not? Law 82C still applies. > Indeed, such a penalty double of an insufficient bid formed the > basis of a problem in The Bridge World's Master Solvers' Club. I do not know the alerting rules but in my view a negative double should be alertable (convention) and a penalty double not. So the change is noticed. Partnership understanding has to be revealed to the opponenets. So what is the real problem? If such a situation arises frequently in a club, the SO should communicate how to handle in such a situation. > But is a partnership changing from negative to penalty doubles mid-auction > legal in the ACBL? If it is illegal, has the ACBL again exceeded its > authority by prohibiting a natural call? > > 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 7 05:06:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e86J5He06332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 05:05:17 +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 e86J5At06328 for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 05:05:11 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 92207 invoked for bounce); 6 Sep 2000 19:05:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.42.32) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 6 Sep 2000 19:05:05 -0000 Message-ID: <02cf01c01835$9abec220$202a1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <200009060522.BAA10631@freenet10.carleton.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Alas, Poor Yorick, I Knew Him Well... Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 21:06:16 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "A. L. Edwards" wrote: > #25 S 4 N E S W > dlr: N H A82 P P P 1N > EW vul D AK732 2D(1) P 2S P > matchpoints C T872 P X P P > S AK96 S QJ87 3D P P P > H KJ96 H T7543 > D T9 D Q (1) alerted, explained > C KJ6 D Q53 as capelletti (sp?), > S T532 both majors > H Q > D J8654 result: +130 NS > C A94 > > If this hand appears familiar, well, I'm glad you're reading RGB! ;-) > I was called at the end of the hand. The opponents claimed they had > been damaged by the auction. I determined that the explanation given > did correspond to the CC, therefore no MI. I then looked at possible > UI, and determined that N may have used UI in choosing his 3D call. > N said that he had already acknowledged the UI by passing 2S, but > that he felt that the AI (the double) was what suggested his 3D call; > also, he knew his partner couldn't have a good 6 card spade suit: no > original 2S bid. I told the parties I would look at the hand, and make > a ruling. > I looked at the problem, and decided that passing 2S was still an LA. > I confirmed this by asking a couple of local experts (ACBL; one has > about 4000 mps, the other about 6500, both experienced on committees) > whether they thought pass (or any other call) was a logical alternative > to 3D: they did. I therefore changed the result to 2Sx-4, +800 NS. I agree with the ruling, although I would have imposed a PP against N, who obviously selected 3D because it was suggested by the UI. Why didn't N, say, SOS-XX *g*. Pass clearly is an LA. S might have passed as dealer holding six or even seven spades for a variety of reasons, for example because he is 6-4 or 7-4 in the majors, or because he is too weak for a preempt. 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 Sep 7 05:18:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e86JIbk06349 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 05:18:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e86JIWt06345 for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 05:18:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.104.236]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20000906191957.PGCM700.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 07:19:57 +1200 Message-ID: <014b01c01836$9901b360$ec6860cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL policy on agreements after opponents' irregularity Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 07:13:44 +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: "Tim West-meads" > This, IMO, would put them outside (or at the edge of) the law. I > choose to read it as "you may not substitute one convention for > another, or substitute a convention for a natural bid but you are free > to abandon conventional bids for natural ones." I don't see this at all. I admit I have no knowledge of how this regulation is interpreted. Surely this would be changing ones conventional agreements. Changing them for natural agreements. The only changes that I see that are allowed are that you can change your natural agreements. For example you can substitute forcing for non-forcing change of suit etc. 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 Sep 7 06:37:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e86Kapb06384 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 06:36:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.worldcom.ch (mail1.worldcom.ch [212.74.176.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e86Kait06380 for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 06:36:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (portne056.worldcom.ch [212.74.142.56]) by mail.worldcom.ch (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA09993 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 22:36:27 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000906223654.00859b10@worldcom.ch> X-Sender: fsb@worldcom.ch X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 22:36:54 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Yvan Calame Subject: [BLML] did insufficient to protect his own back ? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Appeal No. 10 Netherlands v Greece Appeals Committee: Bobby Wolff (Chairman, USA), Grattan Endicott (Scribe, England), Jean-Paul Meyer (France), Dan Morse (USA). Open Teams Round 11 Board 14. Dealer East. None Vul. S A 6 H 10 D K Q 10 7 C K Q 8 6 5 4 S K 10 8 3 2 S J 7 H 4 3 H A Q 8 6 2 D 9 8 5 2 D J 6 4 3 C A 7 C 10 2 S Q 9 5 4 H K J 9 7 5 D A C J 9 3 West North East South De Boer Kotsiopoulos Muller Militsopoulos 2H(1) Pass Pass 3C Pass 3H Pass 4D Pass 5C All Pass Comments: (1)Not alerted East to North, but alerted West to South. Shows 5H, 4+ minor, weak (as described West to South). Contract: Five Clubs, played by North. Lead: Jack of spades. Result: 10 tricks, N/S -50. TD's statement of Facts: After play was finished, North/South summoned TD because North claimed 2H was not alerted. East said he could not remember if he did. North/South now got confused about the meaning of 3H. According to North it asked for a stop, according to South it showed a stop since 2H showed two suits. North could not bid 3NT now. Ruling: Score adjusted to Both sides receive 3NT= by North (N/S +400). Relevant Laws: Law 21B1, 40C. East/West appealed. Present: All players except East The Players: The appellants agreed to the facts. The Committee: East/West -400 stands as ruled by the Director but North/South are not to have the full benefit of this because North did insufficient to protect his own back. There was a culpable failure to alert by East. The Committee's decision: Score adjusted to: North/South receive Greece -4 IMPs (adjustment by the Committee) East/West receive Netherlands +1 IMP (Director's ruling upheld) Note: this is calculated against a score of NS -430 in the other room Deposit: Returned. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 7 07:24:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e86LO5v06411 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Sep 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 smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e86LNxt06407 for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 07:24:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-1054l67.dsl.mindspring.com [64.82.84.199]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA17795 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 17:23:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000906172353.013ee5a0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 17:23:53 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] how U is the I ? In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000906133537.008f99b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:35 PM 9/6/2000 +0200, Alain wrote: >At the table, the return was a small club, which was what West expected. On >being summoned and explained the case, I said to the NOS that I could not >do anything because the mannerism suggested diamonds, if anything. > I agree with your analysis and ruling. Does the detached card demonstrably suggest a club continuation? I cannot see how or why. I would be less confident if it were the successful diamond continuation that was being challenged. I think the detached card suggests an interest in a diamond ruff, but I am not sure that it rises to the standard of "demonstrably suggests". 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 Thu Sep 7 08:35:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e86MYpk06446 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 08:34:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e86MYjt06442 for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 08:34:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (vp236-93.worldonline.nl [195.241.236.93]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 1459736C8E; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 00:35:53 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001201c01853$19bad240$5decf1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Cc: "alain gottcheiner" Subject: Re: [BLML] how U is the I ? Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 00:37:51 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote : >West leads D8 (playing primary attitude) against 4 spades : > > (Dummy) > 10xxxx > x > AQxxx > xx > > N S > > 1NT (15-17) > 2H 3S > 4S > >The declarer takes East's ten with the king, and plays a heart from his >hand. As East wins the trick and considers his return, West detaches a card >from his hand and puts it face down. > >Of course West's behavior is incorrect. But : > >a) could this be suggesting that East play a diamond back ? >b) could this be suggesting that East play a club back ? >c) if East finds the appropriate return, would you penalize East/West on UI >lines ? > >(of course, we would at least give West -a long-time beginner- an official >warning against readying his card, perhaps a PP) > >At the table, the return was a small club, which was what West expected. On >being summoned and explained the case, I said to the NOS that I could not >do anything because the mannerism suggested diamonds, if anything. > > Alain. I haven't paid much atention to this particular hand, but I would like to point out that there can be more UI to cases like these. It's not just that West may suggest a particular return: following a play by East West will either face his card, which conveys the UI to East that East did what West him expected to do, or take his card back and play another one, which will make East realise that he did something that he was not expected to, which again is UI. I loathe this behaviour, and I suggest that a heavy PP should be given to (East and) West, whatever the outcome of the hand. 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 Sep 7 09:41:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e86Nf7V06486 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 09:41:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e86Nf2t06482 for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 09:41:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id sa832512 for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 09:41:29 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-221-171.tmns.net.au ([203.54.221.171]) by mail4.bigpond.com (Claudes-Interesting-MailRouter V2.9b 7/4724745); 07 Sep 2000 09:41:23 Message-ID: <002d01c017ff$db3d4960$abdd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] did insufficient to protect his own back ? Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 22:41:57 +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 -----Original Message----- From: Yvan Calame To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, 7 September 2000 7:55 Subject: [BLML] did insufficient to protect his own back ? >Appeal No. 10 >Netherlands v Greece >Appeals Committee: >Bobby Wolff (Chairman, USA), Grattan Endicott (Scribe, England), >Jean-Paul Meyer (France), Dan Morse (USA). > >Open Teams Round 11 > >Board 14. Dealer East. None Vul. > S A 6 > H 10 > D K Q 10 7 > C K Q 8 6 5 4 >S K 10 8 3 2 S J 7 >H 4 3 H A Q 8 6 2 >D 9 8 5 2 D J 6 4 3 >C A 7 C 10 2 > S Q 9 5 4 > H K J 9 7 5 > D A > C J 9 3 > >West North East South >De Boer Kotsiopoulos Muller Militsopoulos > 2H(1) Pass >Pass 3C Pass 3H >Pass 4D Pass 5C >All Pass > >Comments: >(1)Not alerted East to North, but alerted West to South. >Shows 5H, 4+ minor, weak (as described West to South). > >Contract: >Five Clubs, played by North. > >Lead: >Jack of spades. > >Result: >10 tricks, N/S -50. > >TD's statement of Facts: >After play was finished, North/South summoned TD because >North claimed 2H was not alerted. East said he could not remember >if he did. North/South now got confused about the >meaning of 3H. According to North it asked for a stop, according >to South it showed a stop since 2H showed two suits. North >could not bid 3NT now. > >Ruling: >Score adjusted to Both sides receive >3NT= by North (N/S +400). > >Relevant Laws: >Law 21B1, 40C. > >East/West appealed. > >Present: >All players except East > >The Players: >The appellants agreed to the facts. > >The Committee: >East/West -400 stands as ruled by the Director but >North/South are not to have the full benefit of this because >North did insufficient to protect his own back. >There was a culpable failure to alert by East. > >The Committee's decision: >Score adjusted to: >North/South receive >Greece -4 IMPs (adjustment by the Committee) >East/West receive >Netherlands +1 IMP (Director's ruling upheld) >Note: this is calculated against a score of NS -430 in the other >room I have to admit that I have not seen the WBF Alerting Rules for seven years. This may affect my comments. My first point is that adjusting to 430 (not 400) seems normal. West happily passed 2H. Had North bid 3NT over 3H, a heart lead usually leads to 430, or perhaps even 460. Did the AC treat NS as NOs?? If we assume that a weak 2H is not alertable but a (hearts + minor) 2H is alertable (which seems likely, this being the case in my country), then is North really meant to ask the meaning of just about every bid his screenmate makes just in case there has been a Failure To Alert? As for those who suggest that North should remember because it's on the CC: - have you ever seen a WBF CC? Firstly, the two openings are buried on page 2, not available at an easy glance. And for Maastricht the Special Openings and Responses section on page one is so jammed full of endless junk that it's almost impossible to find anything there. The combination of these two factors makes the assignation of partial blame to North pretty sick, IMO. The basic design flaw of WBF CCs is that there should IMO be two System Submissions by a pair at a WC: a small normal CC for general use, and the current detailed one for reference. - the intensity of WC bridge, and the tiredness factor after several days of top bridge, has to be considered. After a few days of such an event the two lapses (East's failure to alert which is an irregularity) and North's failure to remember what's on the CC (which is not an irregularity) are not uncommon. To put some of the blame on the person who has made the non-irregularity is silly, 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 Thu Sep 7 13:31:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e873UaO06607 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 13:30:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e873UWt06603 for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 13:30:32 +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 NAA01113 for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 13:26:20 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 07 Sep 2000 14:26:52 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] did insufficient to protect his own back ? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 14:28:19 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 07/09/2000 02:23:58 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In effect, the Maastricht committee has ruled: *If you do not bother to look at the opponents' system card, you should be fined 3 imps.* I remember playing a match against regular opponents, who knew that my partnership played a strong club system. (We also had the required two system cards on the table.) On one board I opened 1C, which pard forgot to alert. LHO overcalled a 1H Wonder Bid (either natural, or the other three suits). RHO, assisted by the failure to alert 1C, had a memory lapse about our system. Therefore, he preemptively raised to 4H what he thought was a natural 1H overcall of a natural 1C. This went for a big number when LHO happened to have a singleton heart. The TD and the AC correctly adjusted the score to what would have happened had an alert of 1C woken RHO up. I suggest that if a player's *careless or inferior* action is induced by an opponent's failure to alert, they are still entitled to an adjusted score. However, if it is *irrational* to believe that an unalerted call is natural - or a player is trying to take advantage of a technical breach of alert regulations which has not caused damage - then the score need not be adjusted. A classic example of abuse of alert regulations is a claim for redress after an unalerted Lightner Double. 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 Sep 7 14:57:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e874vXc06718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 14:57:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from venus.racsa.co.cr (venus.racsa.co.cr [207.1.120.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e874vOt06714 for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 14:57:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from john ([196.40.42.224]) by venus.racsa.co.cr (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with SMTP id cr for ; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 22:54:59 -0600 Message-ID: <000401c01877$6cefbec0$e02a28c4@john> Reply-To: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" From: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" To: "BLML" References: Subject: [BLML] Conventional Insufficient Bids Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 22:45:45 -0400 Organization: Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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 A friend of mine had a question about insufficient bids. His concern is when either the insufficient bid or the minimum sufficient bid in the same denomination could be conventional. His question: I have a question about insufficient bids. Assuming Law 25A is not an issue with the following insufficient bids, does law 27B2 apply to all of the following situations? 1. 2NT P 3C P 2D? 2. 1S P 4H* P 4D? * splinter 3. 1C 1S 1S? 4. 1S 2C 2C? 5. 1S P 2NT* P 2D? * jacoby forcing raise 6. 1S P 4S P 4C*? * first round control Law 27B2 says "If either the insufficient bid or the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination may have been conventional ..." The definitions in the Laws says that: Convention - 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other that 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. 2. Defender's play that serves to convey a meaning by agreement rather than inference. My response was: 1. 27B2 2. 27B2 3. 27B1a & 27B1b 4. 27B1a & 27B1b 5. 27B2 6. 27B1a & 27B1b Your thoughts, John John A. Mac Gregor, Chief Tournament Director Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation Current Residence: San Jose, Costa Rica e-mail: johnmacg@hotmail.com johnmacg@sol.racsa.co.cr CACBF Web Page: http://www.geocities.com/cacbf/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 7 16:18:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e876HOe06806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 16:17:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e876HHt06802 for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 16:17:18 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id HAA17788 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 07:17:09 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 07:17 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Alas, Poor Yorick, I Knew Him Well... 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: <02cf01c01835$9abec220$202a1dc2@rabbit> I think it's "Alas poor Yorick, I knew him, Horatio." thomas.dehn@myokay.net wrote: > > "A. L. Edwards" wrote: > > > > #25 S 4 N E S W > > dlr: N H A82 P P P 1N > > EW vul D AK732 2D(1) P 2S P > > matchpoints C T872 P X P P > > S AK96 S QJ87 3D P P P > > H KJ96 H T7543 > > D T9 D Q (1) alerted, explained > > C KJ6 D Q53 as capelletti sp?), > > S T532 both majors > > H Q > > D J8654 result: +130 NS > > C A94 > > > I agree with the ruling, although I would have imposed a PP > against N, who obviously selected 3D because > it was suggested by the UI. Why didn't N, say, SOS-XX *g*. > Pass clearly is an LA. S might have passed > as dealer holding six or even seven spades for > a variety of reasons, for example > because he is 6-4 or 7-4 in the majors, or > because he is too weak for a preempt. Surely not. 6-4 (or 7-4) is an excellent holding for a 3rd in hand pre-empt and it is impossible to be too weak for a third-in-hand pre-empt against vulnerable opponents. (Actually if partner has either of these I probably want to be in 3H not 2S). In reality I think very few players* would stand for this double. 2s by a passed hand may be semi-constructive with diamond tolerance but it is unlikely to be a simple escape bid at this stage. Indeed it is a bid which will automatically start one thinking. Once the double comes in you can be almost certain that the partnership has a better spot. Redouble, 3D, and 3C, 2NT are all reasonable alternatives. Redouble here must be panic (not blood). 3C may well cause sufficient confusion to get passed out (if undoubled), as may 2NT. Further doubles by opponents will almost certainly lead to 3D. 3H= by EW is also a likely score - and better than the alternatives. * This may be enough for an LA by the strict ACBL standards. 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 Sep 7 17:06:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8775lt06862 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 17:05:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8775ht06858 for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 17:05:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id fa061729 for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 17:06:09 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-002-p-213-61.tmns.net.au ([203.54.213.61]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-International-MailRouter V2.9b 13/4767768); 07 Sep 2000 17:06:09 Message-ID: <000e01c0183d$fccdeec0$3dd536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Conventional Insufficient Bids Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 06:06:47 +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 McGregor wrote: >A friend of mine had a question about insufficient bids. His concern >is when either the insufficient bid or the minimum sufficient bid in >the same denomination could be conventional. > >His question: >I have a question about insufficient bids. Assuming Law 25A is not > an issue with the following insufficient bids, does law 27B2 apply to > all of the following situations? > > 1. 2NT P 3C P > 2D? > > 2. 1S P 4H* P > 4D? > * splinter > > 3. 1C 1S 1S? > > 4. 1S 2C 2C? > > 5. 1S P 2NT* P > 2D? > * jacoby forcing raise > >6. 1S P 4S P > 4C*? > * first round control > >Law 27B2 says "If either the insufficient bid or the lowest sufficient >bid in the same denomination may have been conventional ..." > >The definitions in the Laws says that: >Convention - 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a >meaning other that 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. 2. Defender's play that serves to >convey a meaning by agreement rather than inference. > >My response was: >1. 27B2 >2. 27B2 >3. 27B1a & 27B1b >4. 27B1a & 27B1b >5. 27B2 >6. 27B1a & 27B1b My opinions: 1 could be 3=3=2=5 shape i.e conventional. 5 is often played as shortage-showing i.e conventional. 2, 3, 4 and 6 all might be bid by agreement on a void in the suit bid, so I would think that they are all conventional. I suppose that in different parts of the world some calls may have different meanings and thus be natural somewhere but conventional elsewhere. This makes me a bit uncertain. 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 Sep 7 17:19:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e877JGb06883 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 17:19:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e877JAt06879 for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 17:19:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (user-2inith5.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.118.37]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA27359 for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 03:19:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <39B741F0.5019E705@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 00:21:20 -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] Alas, Poor Yorick, I Knew Him Well... References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: > > In-Reply-To: <02cf01c01835$9abec220$202a1dc2@rabbit> > I think it's "Alas poor Yorick, I knew him, Horatio." > > thomas.dehn@myokay.net wrote: > > > > "A. L. Edwards" wrote: > > > > > > > #25 S 4 N E S W > > > dlr: N H A82 P P P 1N > > > EW vul D AK732 2D(1) P 2S P > > > matchpoints C T872 P X P P > > > S AK96 S QJ87 3D P P P > > > H KJ96 H T7543 > > > D T9 D Q (1) alerted, explained > > > C KJ6 D Q53 as capelletti sp?), > > > S T532 both majors > > > H Q > > > D J8654 result: +130 NS > > > C A94 > > > > > > I agree with the ruling, although I would have imposed a PP > > against N, who obviously selected 3D because > > it was suggested by the UI. Why didn't N, say, SOS-XX *g*. > > Pass clearly is an LA. S might have passed > > as dealer holding six or even seven spades for > > a variety of reasons, for example > > because he is 6-4 or 7-4 in the majors, or > > because he is too weak for a preempt. > > Surely not. 6-4 (or 7-4) is an excellent holding for a 3rd in hand > pre-empt and it is impossible to be too weak for a third-in-hand > pre-empt against vulnerable opponents. (Actually if partner has either > of these I probably want to be in 3H not 2S). 8xxxxxx AKxx x x? 3S? 4S? Not everyone's style. > > In reality I think very few players* would stand for this double. In the rgb thread, I think *everyone* stood for the double, including me, many with brutal comments toward any alternative action. I admit to sensing a UI problem coming, but I still think pass is right. This hand is unusually good for spades, all things considered, and really bad for diamonds. 2s > by a passed hand may be semi-constructive with diamond tolerance but > it is unlikely to be a simple escape bid at this stage. They are both passed hands. Going plus *has* to be good. Why embrace danger? The 2D bid is likely to be heavily distributional. Indeed it is > a bid which will automatically start one thinking. Once the double > comes in you can be almost certain that the partnership has a better > spot. Redouble, 3D, and 3C, 2NT are all reasonable alternatives. > Redouble here must be panic (not blood). Yes. This leads to the right answer to the question, and why the original poster got it wrong. (Sorry, Tony!) I admit that I would have initially ruled as he did, for 800, but after getting the helpful explanation that a pull was warranted, I would have realized that the redouble is most appropriate. How can it be panic from partner's side? The bid showed hearts and spades. Maybe partner is trying to chase them. Maybe partner is 7-6 and is concerned about missing the game, and hoping for 800 if they pull. Who knows? But pulling the redouble would be insane. A ruling of -1600 would have been reasonable. 3D is a gross violation. Pass is *clearly* an LA, and I am a very aggressive preemptor, so I suppose there's some justification for Tony's wimpy, lame adjustment to a paltry -800. But I think -1600 is an appropriate adjustment here. Anyone with me, or am I alone on this rock? --JRM -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 7 18:14:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e878EW606939 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 18:14:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e878EOt06935 for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 18:14:25 +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 KAA22390; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 10:15:04 +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 KAA28462; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 10:14:00 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000907102351.008f0aa0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 10:23:51 +0200 To: Yvan Calame , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] did insufficient to protect his own back ? In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000906223654.00859b10@worldcom.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 22:36 6/09/00 +0200, Yvan Calame wrote: > >TD's statement of Facts: >After play was finished, North/South summoned TD because >North claimed 2H was not alerted. East said he could not remember >if he did. North/South now got confused about the >meaning of 3H. According to North it asked for a stop, according >to South it showed a stop since 2H showed two suits. North >could not bid 3NT now. AG : since a player -yours truly- who doesn't play in big events and seldom reads about them knows perfectly well that many top Dutch pairs play 'Muiderberg' (weak two with side minor), I feel North should have known too. And it strikes me as very improbable that, against a two-suiter from which only one suit is known, the defence would include a cue in the anchor suit to show a stopper there. Can they prove it ? In any case, the AC ruling seems quite reasonable to me. If you play different defences against natural bids and 'natural two-suited bids', you should rather check. And the sequence isn't that intricate - it's an opening at a moderate level. However, I would have given an entirely different ruling at another level of play. Alain -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 7 18:22:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e878Lc106951 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 18:21:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e878LVt06947 for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 18:21:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.0.ap (guppy)) id KAA07573; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 10:20:00 +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 KAA02890; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 10:21:06 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000907103057.008ee750@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 10:30:57 +0200 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Alas, Poor Yorick, I Knew Him Well... 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 07:17 7/09/00 +0100, Tim West-meads wrote: >> >> > #25 S 4 N E S W >> > dlr: N H A82 P P P 1N >> > EW vul D AK732 2D(1) P 2S P >> > matchpoints C T872 P X P P >> > S AK96 S QJ87 3D P P P >> > H KJ96 H T7543 >> > D T9 D Q (1) alerted, explained >> > C KJ6 D Q53 as capelletti sp?), >> > S T532 both majors >> > H Q >> > D J8654 result: +130 NS >> > C A94 >> > > >Surely not. 6-4 (or 7-4) is an excellent holding for a 3rd in hand >pre-empt and it is impossible to be too weak for a third-in-hand >pre-empt against vulnerable opponents. (Actually if partner has either >of these I probably want to be in 3H not 2S). AG : I disagree strongly. Anyboby who thinks South can't have KQJ10x - xxxx - x - xxx should be very convincing in telling me why (even more so when the explanation might be self-serving, as is the case here). You can even lower the spade holding to QJ10xx and see 2S is the least of evils, going only two off against a certain E/W game. 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 Sep 7 18:39:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e878dJW06965 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 18:39:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e878d8t06961 for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 18:39:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis124.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.124]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.1999.06.13.00.20) with ESMTP id <0G0I00D3VDD2M8@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 10:39:04 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 10:39:00 +0200 From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: [BLML] Alas, Poor Yorick, I Knew Him Well... In-reply-to: <3.0.6.32.20000907103057.008ee750@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <4.3.2.7.0.20000907103313.00ae1880@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1 References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id e878dFt06962 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:30 07.09.2000 +0200, alain gottcheiner wrote: >At 07:17 7/09/00 +0100, Tim West-meads wrote: > >> > >> > #25 S 4 N E S W > >> > dlr: N H A82 P P P 1N > >> > EW vul D AK732 2D(1) P 2S P > >> > matchpoints C T872 P X P P > >> > S AK96 S QJ87 3D P P P > >> > H KJ96 H T7543 > >> > D T9 D Q (1) alerted, explained > >> > C KJ6 D Q53 as capelletti sp?), > >> > S T532 both majors > >> > H Q > >> > D J8654 result: +130 NS > >> > C A94 > >> > > > > >Surely not. 6-4 (or 7-4) is an excellent holding for a 3rd in hand > >pre-empt and it is impossible to be too weak for a third-in-hand > >pre-empt against vulnerable opponents. (Actually if partner has either > >of these I probably want to be in 3H not 2S). > >AG : I disagree strongly. Anyboby who thinks South can't have KQJ10x - xxxx >- x - xxx >should be very convincing in telling me why (even more so when the >explanation might be self-serving, as is the case here). You can even lower >the spade holding to QJ10xx and see 2S is the least of evils, going only >two off against a certain E/W game. You can see the other side as well (aka from North): Why for heaven´s sake should I bid a second time with my hand (I already showed my d in my mind and after alerting from pard I´m obliged to forget the real meaning of my bid completely...)??? 3d is really ridiculous than (and is maybe worth punished if made by a player with knowledge of the laws; although I personally wouldn´t give PP at club level). Redouble maybe the only thing to think about it, but I dont think this is a LA (see the RGB discuss). BTW to give -1600 is the best way to get a big fan club in your club game ;-)))) -800 seems exactly the point. 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 Thu Sep 7 21:18:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e87BHtj07033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 21:17:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e87BHpt07029 for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 21:17:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot32.domain8.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id za386515 for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 21:18:19 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-211-179.tmns.net.au ([203.54.211.179]) by mail8.bigpond.com (Claudes-Eclectic-MailRouter V2.9b 17/5384501); 07 Sep 2000 21:18:17 Message-ID: <003201c01861$33b57c00$b3d336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] did insufficient to protect his own back ? Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 10:18:51 +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: >Yvan Calame wrote: >> >>TD's statement of Facts: >>After play was finished, North/South summoned TD because >>North claimed 2H was not alerted. East said he could not remember >>if he did. Alain, top players may have exceptional bridge skills but they are human too. Many forget things. In fact look at East above, a World Champion at both Senior and Junior level, young enough not to have memory problems, saying "he could not remember ..." This is normal. People forget things. East did. Why can't North? >>North/South now got confused about the >>meaning of 3H. According to North it asked for a stop, according >>to South it showed a stop since 2H showed two suits. North >>could not bid 3NT now. > >AG : since a player -yours truly- who doesn't play in big events and >seldom reads about them knows perfectly well that many top Dutch >pairs play 'Muiderberg' (weak two with side minor), I feel North should >have known too. See above comments about North's right not to be superhuman. The reason he should have known , and indeed would have known, is from studying the opponents' CC before the match. It's not as if Greeks are like Belgians who for geographical reasons might know what "many top Dutch pairs play". What usually happens at top level is: - North wades through EW's CC,sees the 2D Multi and the 2H = H + minor, but notices Muller- de Boer's transfer jumpshift responses (yes, that's what they play) and may plan a defence to that oddity .... - play starts - East opens 2H. North is concentrating hard on how to bid his hand, in fact focussing far more intently than the average player whom you seem to want to treat differently. North at top level thinks about his bidding problems - while he's doing this, the opponents' system has temporarily been shelved to a far corner of his mind. He hasn't totally forgotten about the 2H bid's meaning; it's just that there is an Alert Procedure which looks after waking him up, so he plays bridge as it's meant to be played - the Alert Procedure is there to do its job and the player sticks to his job of bidding, alerting and playing. Say you're playing against a Precision pair who fail to alert 1C. Should you have to retain part of the bad score you get due to their Failure To Alert? Of course not. Say you're playing against a Forcing Pass who fail to alert a strong Pass. Should you have to retain part of the bad score you get due to their Failure To Alert? Of course not. Or do you prefer a game where the Director and/or AC introduce thier judgement into a non-judgement situation, by designating that a certain part of the "Failure To Alert North" was North's fault? >And it strikes me as very improbable that, against a two-suiter from >which only one suit is known, the defence would include a cue in the >anchor suit to show a stopper there. Can they prove it ? >In any case, the AC ruling seems quite reasonable to me. If you >play different defences against natural bids and 'natural two-suited >bids', you should rather check. Do you mean that all the pairs who play different defences against a Strong 1C and a natural 1C should always ask about an unalerted 1C on the right? >And the sequence isn't that intricate - it's an opening at a moderate level. If it were any more intricate then the WBF would have banned it from this particular stage of the event. :) >However, I would have given an entirely different ruling at another level >of play. I wouldn't be affected by that. I think that top players should be allowed to have memory lapses just like anyone else, and that if the memory lapse causes an irregularity (e.g. Failure To Alert), then they have to live with the consequences under the Laws of Bridge. If they remain the Non Offending side after the memory lapse, I think they should be treated as Non Offenders. Your, and the AC's (opposing) view seems to be that the onus to alert North to the alertability of East's 2H bid is partly North's and partly East's. Yet the Laws and regulations put the onus on East. I prefer bridge to be a game where the responsibility for alerting rests with EW in this case. A game where players can bid in tempo wihout having to stop and think:"Will I ask the opponents whether that unalerted bid should have been alerted?" Where does it all end? What are the regulators, such as those on this AC, trying to do to the smooth flow of the game of bridge? I think that punishing North in this Appeal eats into the very essence of the game, and in fact is part of an inadvertent process which if unchecked may destroy bridge. 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 Sep 8 03:23:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e87HM6N07273 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 03:22:06 +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 (oe43.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e87HLxt07269 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 03:22:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 10:21:52 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [195.64.60.246] From: "David Stevenson" To: "BLML" Cc: "Max Bavin" Subject: [BLML] Two cards played together Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 19:22:07 +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: 07 Sep 2000 17:21:52.0125 (UTC) FILETIME=[1CD40AD0:01C018F0] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Some time ago I said I would give a considered opinion on this subject. A player plays two [or more] cards simultaneously and both are visible. How do you rule? According to L58B2, "the player designates the card he proposes to play". There is no suggestion in that Law that the card need be the same as the one he originally intended to play. He may feel it is advantageous to switch the card, for example to avoid leaving a high honour as a major penalty card. There is no further problem if he is declarer: the other card[s] go back in his hand. But if he is a defender the other card[s] becomes a penalty card: major or minor? If there is more than one they will all be major [L50B], and if the remaining card is an honour it will be major [ibid]. Suppose the remaining card is a single card below honour rank? If you read L50B you will discover that the card is minor if it was exposed inadvertently but major if it was exposed through deliberately play so it begins to look as though declarer's original intention comes in to play. Suppose the cards played together are the C3 and the CA: if the player chooses to play the C3 the CA will be an MPC, being an honour. What if he chooses the CA, will the C3 be an mPC? At first sight the answer seems to be Yes, and many TDs have always ruled this way. After all L50B actually refers to "playing two cards to a trick" as a method of getting an mPC. However, the actual wording of L50B suggests otherwise and some contributors here consider it is obvious that if the player originally intended to play the C3 then it will become an MPC. Is there anything wrong with this? Well, those contributors who allow themselves a little sympathy to the game of bridge believe that the Law would read differently if the lawmakers intended this. The reference in L50B to simultaneous play would read differently: the wording of L58B2 would read differently. Sadly, it appears the lawmakers have made a mistake in not considering fully the actual wording of L50B and I must agree with the unsympathetic contributors: I believe that if the card was originally intended to be played then I think the language of L50B makes it an MPC now. Some people may witter on about the difficulties of finding out the player's original intention but that does not affect the Law: we want to know where we are. Of course, sometimes the player says what he intended to play: otherwise the TD could ask him. I would have sympathy for a TD who does not find out what card was originally intended if the player does not tell him, and assumes it was the card now chosen, but I think he is wrong in Law. I would also have sympathy for an SO which interprets this Law in the way I believe it was originally intended. cc Max Bavin -- 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 Fri Sep 8 04:15:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e87IF0V07302 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 04:15:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e87IEst07298 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 04:14:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e87BNYb03665 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 11:23:34 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Board spoiled by director Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 11:05:41 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00090711233400.03596@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Matchpoints, neither vulnerable, ACBL sectional pairs K K98 AT9843 J42 QJ8 A752 7543 AQT KJ76 Q52 75 KQ9 T9643 J62 - AT863 W N E S 1N p p 2C(1) p 2D(2) x p p xx p p p (1) Intended as Cappelletti, not alerted (2) Also not alerted After the SQ lead, North remembers that Cappelletti is alertable, and informs the opponents. West calls the director (actually, this is North's responsibility). The director comes to the table with a record of the hand. While she is studying the auction, she accidentally shows the hand record to the players. Any further play on this hand is not bridge, but how do you assign scores? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 8 04:17:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e87IHqd07314 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 04:17:52 +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.iol.ie (mail2.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.193]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e87IHjt07310 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 04:17:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-029.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.221]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA19323 for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 19:17:34 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <009601c018f9$33a5c880$dd307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Alas, Poor Yorick, I Knew Him Well... Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 19:26:50 +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 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Richard Bley To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: 07 September 2000 10:01 Subject: Re: [BLML] Alas, Poor Yorick, I Knew Him Well... > >> >> > #25 S 4 N E S W >> >> > dlr: N H A82 P P P 1N >> >> > EW vul D AK732 2D(1) P 2S P >> >> > matchpoints C T872 P X P P >> >> > S AK96 S QJ87 3D P P P >> >> > H KJ96 H T7543 >> >> > D T9 D Q (1) alerted, explained >> >> > C KJ6 D Q53 as capelletti sp?), >> >> > S T532 both majors >> >> > H Q >> >> > D J8654 result: +130 NS >> >> > C A94 >> >> > 3D is suggested over pass by the UI. Pass is an LA The TD was right. Regards, Fearghal. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 8 04:47:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e87IkuM07341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 04:46:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.211.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e87Ikkt07333 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 04:46:47 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 65848 invoked for bounce); 7 Sep 2000 18:20:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.57.50) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 7 Sep 2000 18:20:03 -0000 Message-ID: <019301c018f8$7a256140$32391dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Alas, Poor Yorick, I Knew Him Well... Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 20:13:08 +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 "Tim West-meads" wrote: > In-Reply-To: <02cf01c01835$9abec220$202a1dc2@rabbit> > I think it's "Alas poor Yorick, I knew him, Horatio." > > thomas.dehn@myokay.net wrote: > > > > "A. L. Edwards" wrote: > > > > > > > #25 S 4 N E S W > > > dlr: N H A82 P P P 1N > > > EW vul D AK732 2D(1) P 2S P > > > matchpoints C T872 P X P P > > > S AK96 S QJ87 3D P P P > > > H KJ96 H T7543 > > > D T9 D Q (1) alerted, explained > > > C KJ6 D Q53 as capelletti sp?), > > > S T532 both majors > > > H Q > > > D J8654 result: +130 NS > > > C A94 > > > > > > I agree with the ruling, although I would have imposed a PP > > against N, who obviously selected 3D because > > it was suggested by the UI. Why didn't N, say, SOS-XX *g*. > > Pass clearly is an LA. S might have passed > > as dealer holding six or even seven spades for > > a variety of reasons, for example > > because he is 6-4 or 7-4 in the majors, or > > because he is too weak for a preempt. > > Surely not. 6-4 (or 7-4) is an excellent holding for a 3rd in hand > pre-empt and it is impossible to be too weak for a third-in-hand > pre-empt against vulnerable opponents. (Actually if partner has either > of these I probably want to be in 3H not 2S). I have some example hands. Please detail with which preempt you would open them 3rd seat at white (playing weak-twos): - KQJTx,x,x,QJ9xxx - Axxxxxx,KJxx,void,xx - KQTxxx,QJTxx,x,x - xxxxxxx,KQJx,x,x - KJTxxx,KJTxxx,void,x 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 Fri Sep 8 04:47:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e87IkvX07342 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 04:46:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.211.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e87Iklt07334 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 04:46:48 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 65856 invoked for bounce); 7 Sep 2000 18:20:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.57.50) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 7 Sep 2000 18:20:03 -0000 Message-ID: <019401c018f8$7a8a1680$32391dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <003201c01861$33b57c00$b3d336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] did insufficient to protect his own back ? Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 20:21:00 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Peter Gill" wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >Yvan Calame wrote: > >> > >>TD's statement of Facts: > >>After play was finished, North/South summoned TD because > >>North claimed 2H was not alerted. East said he could not remember > >>if he did. > > Alain, top players may have exceptional bridge skills but they > are human too. Many forget things. In fact look at East above, > a World Champion at both Senior and Junior level, young enough > not to have memory problems, saying "he could not remember ..." > This is normal. People forget things. East did. Why can't North? Nevertheless it does seem to be very careless not to have a look at opponents' CC when LHO has opened 2H, especially taking into account that screens were in use, and thus there would be no UI. Effectively N received a PP of 3 IMPs for neither looking at the opponents' CC nor inquiring about the auction. An unusual ruling, but we have all seen much poorer rulings. 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 Fri Sep 8 05:29:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e87JSO707371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 05:28:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e87JSHt07367 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 05:28:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.117] (d185fca75.rochester.rr.com [24.95.202.117]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA28605; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 15:23:32 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00090711233400.03596@psa836> References: <00090711233400.03596@psa836> Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 15:19:31 -0400 To: David J Grabiner From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >The director comes to the table with a record of the hand. While she >is studying the auction, she accidentally shows the hand record to the >players. > >Any further play on this hand is not bridge, but how do you assign >scores? Avg+ to both sides. Law 12A2 and Law 88. (since the artificial adjusted score is required because of director's error, both sides are considered non-offending.) Of course, now that I've said that, others will disagree. :-) 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 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBObfsRL2UW3au93vOEQKSfACg7Yg0nJHMDHj5bm24Y0FgVs5vx2YAoPT+ z9XVqQEUoFWc0CWoBjOHHTTs =ulKO -----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 Sep 8 06:02:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e87K1dS07393 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 06:01:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e87K1Wt07389 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 06:01:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis71.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.71]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.1999.06.13.00.20) with ESMTP id <0G0J00K4S8YFEX@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 22:01:28 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 22:01:25 +0200 From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director In-reply-to: X-Sender: bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de To: Bridge Laws Message-id: <4.3.2.7.0.20000907220041.00a85290@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: <00090711233400.03596@psa836> <00090711233400.03596@psa836> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 15:19 07.09.2000 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > > >The director comes to the table with a record of the hand. While she > >is studying the auction, she accidentally shows the hand record to the > >players. > > > >Any further play on this hand is not bridge, but how do you assign > >scores? > >Avg+ to both sides. Law 12A2 and Law 88. (since the artificial >adjusted score is required because of director's error, both sides >are considered non-offending.) Hi Ed, I disagree with the last sentence because I agree with your ruling ;-)))) 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 Fri Sep 8 07:35:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e87LZBr07436 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 07:35:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e87LZ4t07432 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 07:35:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.117] (d185fca75.rochester.rr.com [24.95.202.117]) by mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA01720; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 17:17:01 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20000907220041.00a85290@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> References: <00090711233400.03596@psa836> <00090711233400.03596@psa836> <4.3.2.7.0.20000907220041.00a85290@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 17:24:16 -0400 To: Richard Bley From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 10:01 PM +0200 9/7/00, Richard Bley wrote: >Hi Ed, > >I disagree with the last sentence because I agree with your ruling ;-)))) ROFL! Thanks. :-) 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 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBObgKAL2UW3au93vOEQItGwCdFCHhV/e90kv2F46FyINfi07NmLYAn1zy 3mDELB+KX9zsdv8zBzIr1R1X =nWl/ -----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 Sep 8 08:00:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e87Lxst07454 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 07:59:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e87Lxmt07450 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 07:59:48 +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 RAA08065 for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 17:59:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA23562 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 17:59:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 17:59:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200009072159.RAA23562@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Two cards played together X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "David Stevenson" > I believe that if the card was originally > intended to be played then I think the language of L50B makes it an MPC now. If the remaining small card is _known to_ be the one originally intended, I agree with David. It has to be a MPC. > Some people may witter on about the difficulties of finding out the > player's original intention but that does not affect the Law: we want to > know where we are. Of course, sometimes the player says what he intended to > play: otherwise the TD could ask him. Why should the TD ask the player? He might ask the opponents whether the manner of playing or any remarks revealed the original intent, but if the answer is 'no', or if upon investigation the TD concludes that the intent is not known, why try to find out? > I would have sympathy for a TD who does not find out what card was > originally intended if the player does not tell him, and assumes it was the > card now chosen, but I think he is wrong in Law. I don't see why the TD needs to assume anything. If the intent is unknown, just rule mPC. I agree that an SO or NCBO could reasonably adopt either interpretation, which would be binding in its jurisdiction. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 8 08:51:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e87MnxU07485 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 08:49:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.worldcom.ch (mail1.worldcom.ch [212.74.176.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e87Mnqt07481 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 08:49:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (portne025.worldcom.ch [212.74.142.25]) by mail.worldcom.ch (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA29552 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 00:49:37 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000908005004.00862d00@worldcom.ch> X-Sender: fsb@worldcom.ch X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 00:50:04 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Yvan Calame Subject: Re: [BLML] did insufficient to protect his own back ? In-Reply-To: <019401c018f8$7a8a1680$32391dc2@rabbit> References: <003201c01861$33b57c00$b3d336cb@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 20:21 07.09.00 +0200, Thomas Dehn wrote: >Nevertheless it does seem to be very careless >not to have a look at opponents' CC when >LHO has opened 2H, especially taking into >account that screens were in use, and thus there >would be no UI. Effectively N received a PP >of 3 IMPs for neither looking at the opponents' CC >nor inquiring about the auction. In the final Poland beated Italy 120 PP imps to 180 PP imps. (A PP of 3 IMPs for neither looking at the opponents' CC nor inquiring about the auction, was given 40 times to Poland, 60 times to Italy.) It seems that one team scored 40 "bridge" imps more than the other but, as it didnt change the result, nobody noticed which team scored more. Yvan -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 8 09:05:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e87N5GI07511 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 09:05:16 +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 e87N57t07507 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 09:05:07 +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 TAA11174 for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 19:05:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA23652 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 19:05:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 19:05:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200009072305.TAA23652@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL policy on agreements after opponents' irregularity X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > I must be free to do so, notwithstanding that in doing so > I am ascribing a different meaning to the auction 1S-1H/2H-X than I would > to 1S-2H-X. If your double in either auction is conventional, I don't see why an SO couldn't require you to give the doubles in both auctions the same meaning under L40D. (At the very least, they can forbid you to use any conventions in the subsequent auction.) If you play neither double as conventional, then I think you are correct that meanings can be different. (I'm not sure just how the meanings could differ if neither double is conventional, but perhaps overall strength or heart holding promised could be different.) > ...agreements about actions over an opponent's irregularity, which are prima > facie illegal in ACBL competition Not since 1998, apparently. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 8 17:15:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e887E0t07703 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 17:14:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e887Dpt07699 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 17:13:55 +1000 (EST) Received: by esebh02nok with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) id ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 10:13:12 +0300 Message-ID: From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Board spoiled by director Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 10:13:12 +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 David J Grabiner [mailto:grabiner@math.la.asu.edu] > Sent: 07. September 2000 14:06 > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: [BLML] Board spoiled by director > > > > Matchpoints, neither vulnerable, ACBL sectional pairs > > K > K98 > AT9843 > J42 > QJ8 A752 > 7543 AQT > KJ76 Q52 > 75 KQ9 > T9643 > J62 > - > AT863 > > W N E S > 1N p > p 2C(1) p 2D(2) > x p p xx > p p p > > (1) Intended as Cappelletti, not alerted > (2) Also not alerted > > After the SQ lead, North remembers that Cappelletti is alertable, and > informs the opponents. West calls the director (actually, this is > North's responsibility). > > The director comes to the table with a record of the hand. While she > is studying the auction, she accidentally shows the hand record to the > players. > > Any further play on this hand is not bridge, but how do you assign > scores? A+ to the players, A- to the 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 Fri Sep 8 19:13:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e889D3T07752 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 19:13:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e889Cvt07748 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 19:12:58 +1000 (EST) Received: by esebh02nok with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) id ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 12:12:06 +0300 Message-ID: From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] What does the fast pass over skip bid demonstrably suggests? Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 11:57:59 +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 Consider a textbook UI situation: North opens 1S and East goes into a tank and then passes. This pass "demonstrably suggets" values so West is not allowed to re-open on a marginal hand. Another one: W N E S 1NT x p p 2C x p* p ? The hesitation over the second double "demonstrably suggests" that East is not sure if he can stand 2Cx so again West cannot look for another strain unless playing 2Cx is not a LA (say he rebid 2C on AKxx KQ10x AJx xx now passing 2Cx is not a LA). That was easy. What happens if there is a skip bid? W N E S STOP 2S p p ? North passed in tempo. What does North's fast pass "demonstrably suggests"? It looks that it suggests weakness but in that case South would be _forced_ to re-open on marginal hand. I have never ever seen a ruling canceling pass and giving and AssAS based on the assumption that South should ethically re-open in this position. Can anybody show me an appeal from a top level tournament involving this problem? I recall one involving Gwis-Polec pair but that one was easy: there was a fast double after a skip bid so it clearly suggested passing. What about the fast pass? 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 Sep 8 22:09:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e88C87p07862 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 22:08:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (mta06-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e88C80t07858 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 22:08:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.4.58]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000908120756.RDAZ312.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 13:07:56 +0100 Message-ID: <001a01c0198d$db9608e0$3a04ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne.jones1" To: "BLML" References: <00090711233400.03596@psa836> Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 13:11:01 +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: "David J Grabiner" To: Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 12:05 PM Subject: [BLML] Board spoiled by director > > Matchpoints, neither vulnerable, ACBL sectional pairs > > K > K98 > AT9843 > J42 > QJ8 A752 > 7543 AQT > KJ76 Q52 > 75 KQ9 > T9643 > J62 > - > AT863 > > W N E S > 1N p > p 2C(1) p 2D(2) > x p p xx > p p p > > (1) Intended as Cappelletti, not alerted > (2) Also not alerted > > After the SQ lead, North remembers that Cappelletti is alertable, and > informs the opponents. West calls the director (actually, this is > North's responsibility). > > The director comes to the table with a record of the hand. While she > is studying the auction, she accidentally shows the hand record to the > players. > > Any further play on this hand is not bridge, but how do you assign > scores? > -- Law 16B3Information from extraneous sources..(1 an 2 do not apply -> Law 88 -> Law 12A2 -> Law 12C1.= A+A+ > I suggest this TD now removes herself from the scene and asks the TDiC to look at the problem to decide whether a fine for failure to alert would be in order. > Anne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 8 22:18:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e88CIDA07879 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 22:18:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe30.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e88CI8t07875 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 22:18:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 05:18:00 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [195.64.60.246] From: "David Stevenson" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Conventional Insufficient Bids Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 14:17:47 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Sep 2000 12:18:00.0212 (UTC) FILETIME=[D42CA540:01C0198E] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ John Mac G wrote: A friend of mine had a question about insufficient bids. His concern is when either the insufficient bid or the minimum sufficient bid in the same denomination could be conventional. His question: I have a question about insufficient bids. Assuming Law 25A is not an issue with the following insufficient bids, does law 27B2 apply to all of the following situations? 1. 2NT P 3C P 2D? 2. 1S P 4H* P 4D? * splinter 3. 1C 1S 1S? 4. 1S 2C 2C? 5. 1S P 2NT* P 2D? * jacoby forcing raise 6. 1S P 4S P 4C*? * first round control Law 27B2 says "If either the insufficient bid or the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination may have been conventional ..." +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ They all seem to be conventional so I would treat all of them under L27B2. -- 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 Fri Sep 8 22:28:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e88CSJ107902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 22:28:19 +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-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 e88CS8t07898 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 22:28:09 +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 e88CS4j50793 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 08:28:04 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000908082554.00a96ed0@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, 08 Sep 2000 08:28:52 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Alas, Poor Yorick, I Knew Him Well... In-Reply-To: <019301c018f8$7a256140$32391dc2@rabbit> 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 02:13 PM 9/7/00, Thomas wrote: >I have some example hands. >Please detail with which preempt you would >open them 3rd seat at white (playing weak-twos): >- KQJTx,x,x,QJ9xxx >- Axxxxxx,KJxx,void,xx >- KQTxxx,QJTxx,x,x >- xxxxxxx,KQJx,x,x >- KJTxxx,KJTxxx,void,x I doubt that Thomas is really interested in what EHAA players would do with these hands, but I can't resist getting in a plug for my favorite system. 2C on the first, 2S on the other four. 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 Sep 8 22:38:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e88Cbw107916 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 22:37:59 +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 (oe49.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e88Cbnt07912 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 22:37:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 05:37:42 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [195.64.60.246] From: "David Stevenson" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Board spoiled by director Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 14:38:00 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Sep 2000 12:37:42.0044 (UTC) FILETIME=[9499E5C0:01C01991] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David J Grabiner wrote: ==+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Matchpoints, neither vulnerable, ACBL sectional pairs K K98 AT9843 J42 QJ8 A752 7543 AQT KJ76 Q52 75 KQ9 T9643 J62 - AT863 W N E S 1N p p 2C(1) p 2D(2) x p p xx p p p (1) Intended as Cappelletti, not alerted (2) Also not alerted After the SQ lead, North remembers that Cappelletti is alertable, and informs the opponents. West calls the director (actually, this is North's responsibility). ==+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ No, it isn't. We *must* get away from this unfortunate idea that a particular player has a responsibility. Sure, the Laws may stress that North should, but L9B1B makes it clear that all the players should do so. ==+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The director comes to the table with a record of the hand. While she is studying the auction, she accidentally shows the hand record to the players. Any further play on this hand is not bridge, but how do you assign scores? ==+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ L16B3 requires ArtASs so the players get A+/A+. -- 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 Fri Sep 8 22:40:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e88Ce2x07948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 22:40:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e88Cdtt07944 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 22:39:56 +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 e88Cdp882935 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 08:39:51 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000908083300.00b1d2b0@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, 08 Sep 2000 08:40:39 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] did insufficient to protect his own back ? In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000908005004.00862d00@worldcom.ch> References: <019401c018f8$7a8a1680$32391dc2@rabbit> <003201c01861$33b57c00$b3d336cb@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 06:50 PM 9/7/00, Yvan wrote: >In the final Poland beated Italy 120 PP imps to 180 PP imps. >(A PP of 3 IMPs for neither looking at the opponents' CC >nor inquiring about the auction, was given 40 times to >Poland, 60 times to Italy.) >It seems that one team scored 40 "bridge" imps more than the >other but, as it didnt change the result, nobody noticed >which team scored more. I trust that these PPs were given for violating some specific requirement that appeared in the conditions of contest for the specific event. There is nothing in the laws per se that requires a player to look at the opponents' CC or inquire about auctions; if one chooses to ignore the opponents' methods entirely, one is legally free to do so. At such high a level, one could argue that this would violate L74B1, but that's enough of a stretch that I can't see giving out PPs unless there was something in the conditions of contest to let the players know that ignoring the opponents' methods would be considered an 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 Sep 8 23:17:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e88DHDo07976 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 23:17:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from liger.tpage.com (IDENT:root@[211.112.13.123]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e88DH3t07972 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 23:17:04 +1000 (EST) Received: (from tpage@localhost) by liger.tpage.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA17411; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 22:15:33 +0900 Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 22:15:33 +0900 Message-Id: <200009081315.WAA17411@liger.tpage.com> X-Authentication-Warning: liger.tpage.com: tpage set sender to postmaster@Tpage.com using -f TO: "" From: "Tpage.com" Subject: [BLML] Tpage Newsletter - A Leader in Global B2B Trade Content-type: text/html Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tpage.com Newsletter
    
Tpage Directory | Offer board | Showroom | Business Community 
Tpage Features
Company Directory
Search Engine
Tpost
Tpage Offer Board
Tpage Showroom
Business Community
Cool Mart
Hot Items

Direct Drive Mouse
(Ball-less 2000)
*Not ball mouse
*Not optical mouse
*Low price
*Semi-permanent life time

Touch Panel PC(PL-M64P)
*6.4"
*Mini Type
*Dimension: 230*200*90
(W*H*D)
About Us
Tpage Global
Executive Profiles
Strategic Partners
Global Alliance
Press Release
 

webmaster@Tpage.com

 

 

 

 

 


Dear Sir or Madam:

Greetings from Tpage!

Come to Tpage! You will be able to meet over 1,200,000 of buyers and sellers!


W
e are writing to inform you about Tpage.com. Tpage.com provides value-added services to global companies enabling them to promote and develop trade in the B2B International Market.


T
page is a B2B Portal with the most powerful company directory and trade leads search engine in the industry. What this means for global traders, like yourself, is that Tpage is the single most comprehensive source to find and post trade leads, research markets and competitors and obtain a global presence for your business on the Internet. Tpage offers a full battery of tools custom tailored to make trading simplified and more efficient.

We invite you to visit Tpage to join our free membership. This will allow you to have free access to the 1.2 million of company directory information and more than 5oo daily updated trade offers as well as other useful services to simplify your trading experience.

Listed below are some of our services:
  • Tpage Company Directory: The Tpage Company Directory has over 1,200,000 registered companies. It is designed to allow users to find Companies according to company name or industry sector. Each entry in our Company Directory has a brief company description, contact and in many cases a link to a company homepage. Sign Up!
  • Tsearch: Tpage's own proprietary B2B World Trade Search Engine allows search capabilities from the Tpage Company Directory, Tpage offer board, and Tpage Expo. The search engine also provides the ability to search information from other major sources and bulletin boards. The search engine is designed to find items, companies, offers to sell and offers to buy, by using keywords. Advanced Search capability is also built into this feature. Sign Up!
  • Tpost: Tpage's auto multi-posting system enables simultaneous posting to other major trade sites and bulletins. This takes the offer, which a trader has posted on our site, and optimizes exposure by placing it on numerous other trade bulletins. The task requires one simple posting on the Tpage site. Sign Up!
  • Tpage Offer Board: The Tpage offer board allows users to post and browse trade leads. The Tpage Offer Board features our own listings. It is also sub-divided into categories where a company can easily access the trade leads for their convenience. More than 500 offers are listed daily. Sign Up!
  • Tpage Showroom: The Showroom is a collaboration of corporate profiles highlighting corporate vision, contact information and the ability to paste image files of their products. The company creates their own Tpage Showroom by using a program that was developed In-house. Sign Up!
  • Tpage Business Community: Designed to bring business people together from all areas to share and discuss business issues. The Business Community includes a Business Talk-Questions & Answers section, Discussion Forum, an Online Magazine section, online Associations and a Classifieds Section. Sign Up!
Tpage will be a powerful tool for your business. 30 minutes at Tpage.com will show you the unique world of on-line B2B International Trade.
Register for Free!!! (http://Member.Tpage.com)
Thank you.

 
A Leader in Global B2B Trade - - - - - www.Tpage.com
 
        English - Korean - Chinese - Japanese - Spanish - French - German
 

Copyright (c) 2000 Tpage.com, Inc. All rights reserved.

 

 

If you don't want to receive new offers and business news from Tpage, please click here.


-- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 8 23:28:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e88DSLc07992 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 23:28:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e88DSEt07986 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 23:28:15 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id OAA11370 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 14:28:05 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 14:28 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Alas, Poor Yorick, I Knew Him Well... 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: <39B741F0.5019E705@mindspring.com> jrmayne@mindspring.com wrote: > 8xxxxxx AKxx x x? 3S? 4S? Not everyone's style. Indeed, although the second HA is unlikely. That is why knowing the style of the actual player is so important - personally I consider this a truly beautiful 3S bid in the situation. > > In reality I think very few players* would stand for this double. I completely misunderstood the partnership style when I wrote this. > In the rgb thread, I think *everyone* stood for the double, > including me, many with brutal comments toward any alternative > action. I admit to sensing a UI problem coming, but I still think > pass is right. This hand is unusually good for spades, all things > considered, and really bad for diamonds. Had the same hand been presented with the information "Partner's original pass almost certainly denies more than 5 spades (or even 5 good ones)" the answers would be different would they not? > > 2s by a passed hand may be semi-constructive with diamond > > tolerance but it is unlikely to be a simple escape bid at this > > stage. > > They are both passed hands. Going plus *has* to be good. Why embrace > danger? The 2D bid is likely to be heavily distributional. If you play a system where x,Axx,AKxxx,Txxx is not an opening bid then you need to handle things differently later in the auction. Would a "heavily distributional" 2D overcall not have opened 2D originally. > > Redouble, 3D, and 3C, 2NT are all reasonable alternatives. > > Redouble here must be panic (not blood). > > Yes. This leads to the right answer to the question, and why the > original poster got it wrong. (Sorry, Tony!) I admit that I would > have initially ruled as he did, for 800, but after getting the > helpful explanation that a pull was warranted, I would have > realized that the redouble is most appropriate. Sorry but redouble does not make sense if partner can hold eg KQJTx,Qxxx,x,xxx or xxxxxxx,Kx,x,Kxx you risk turning a not too bad -100 into a tragic -200. > How can it be panic from partner's side? > The bid showed hearts and spades. Maybe partner is trying to chase > them. Maybe partner is 7-6 and is concerned about missing the game, > and hoping for 800 if they pull. Who knows? But pulling the redouble > would be insane. 2S doubled is game (and then some). Why on earth would partner redouble when he already has a top? If there is even the slightest chance that a redouble is SOS you should pull - some money players would save themselves a fortune if they remembered this. > A ruling of -1600 would have been reasonable. IMO It might just make "at all likely" for -1600/-140 but I wouldn't consider it likely in the context (depends on the player of course). > 3D is a gross violation. Not gross. The player had already tried to abide by the laws when passing 2S. He clearly doesn't consider pass an LA and failed to think through the alternatives. In the context of his system I think this shows poor judgement rather than ill-intent. The -200 he would have expected in 2S (if passed out) was probably a bottom anyway so he really doesn't look like a man trying to weasel. 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 Sep 8 23:28:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e88DSPo07995 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 23:28:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e88DSHt07988 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 23:28:18 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id OAA11381 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 14:28:06 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 14:28 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Alas, Poor Yorick, I Knew Him Well... 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: <019301c018f8$7a256140$32391dc2@rabbit> > I have some example hands. > Please detail with which preempt you would > open them 3rd seat at white (playing weak-twos): > - KQJTx,x,x,QJ9xxx 2S, (maybe 1C, maybe 3C, maybe 1S) > - Axxxxxx,KJxx,void,xx 3S, would be 4S if the KJxx was in a minor > - KQTxxx,QJTxx,x,x Probably 1S, maybe 2S > - xxxxxxx,KQJx,x,x 3S, automatic (as with xxxxxxx,xxxx,x,x) > - KJTxxx,KJTxxx,void,x 1S, this is way too strong to pre-empt. I don't normally play weak 2s but even without those options I wouldn't pass any of these hands at any stakes. JTxxxx,KJTxxx,-,x presents a real problem without weak 2s. My general style is for wide-ranging pre-empts, one misses the odd game and pays out the odd 1400, but on the whole the upside seems to outweigh the downside. I get to play more contracts (and my play is much better than my defence), people remember the times I made +590/790 more vividly than their missed opportunities for 800+. (Oh yes, and it's fun!). 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 Fri Sep 8 23:44:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e88DiY908020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 23:44:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e88DiSt08016 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 23:44:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id JAA26163 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 09:44:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id JAA00105 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 09:44:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 09:44:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200009081344.JAA00105@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "David Stevenson" [Calling the TD:] > We *must* get away from this unfortunate idea that a > particular player has a responsibility. Sure, the Laws may stress that > North should, but L9B1B makes it clear that all the players should do so. David S. is right in general, of course, but in the specific case David G. gave, L75D2 gives explicit responsibility to North. Agreed, that doesn't mean the other players have no responsibility whatsoever. Actually, L75D2 is phrased in an interesting way. It appears to me that 'must' (the strongest admonition in the Laws) relates only to informing the opponents, while calling the TD is given only as a matter of proper procedure. But one could read the law as applying 'must' to the TD call as well as the correction. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 8 23:50:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e88DoMe08032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 23:50:22 +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 e88DoFt08028 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 23:50:16 +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 JAA26464 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 09:50:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id JAA00127 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 09:50:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 09:50:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200009081350.JAA00127@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] What does the fast pass over skip bid demonstrably suggests? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > W N E S > STOP 2S p p ? > > North passed in tempo. > What does North's fast pass "demonstrably suggests"? Just a matter of terminology: 'in tempo' in the above means "after the required 10-second pause." A fast pass is not "in tempo." >. Can anybody show me an appeal from > a top level tournament involving this problem? I doubt you will find one in a "top level" tournament; good players bid in tempo after skip bids. I wouldn't be surprised to find a 'fast pass' case in one of the ACBL books, although I don't recall any offhand. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 9 00:31:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e88EUh908057 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 00:30:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from esebh03nok.ntc.nokia.com (esebh03nok.ntc.nokia.com [131.228.118.244]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e88EUbt08053 for ; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 00:30:38 +1000 (EST) Received: by esebh03nok with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) id ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 17:30:33 +0300 Message-ID: From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Tpage Newsletter - A Leader in Global B2B Trade Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 17:30:31 +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 for the second time when spam appears on BLML. Can the administrator kick off this Tpage thing out of the list, please? 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 Sep 9 01:24:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e88FOPr08110 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 01:24:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e88FOJt08106 for ; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 01:24:19 +1000 (EST) Received: by esebh01nok with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) id ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 18:24:14 +0300 Message-ID: From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com To: willner@cfa.harvard.edu, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] What does the fast pass over skip bid demonstrably sug gests? Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 18:12:54 +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: 08. September 2000 16:50 > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: [BLML] What does the fast pass over skip bid demonstrably > suggests? > > > > W N E S > > STOP 2S p p ? > > > > North passed in tempo. > > What does North's fast pass "demonstrably suggests"? > > Just a matter of terminology: 'in tempo' in the above means "after the > required 10-second pause." A fast pass is not "in tempo." > > >. Can anybody show me an appeal from > > a top level tournament involving this problem? > > I doubt you will find one in a "top level" tournament; good > players bid > in tempo after skip bids. I doubt this is the main reason. Top level tournaments are played with screens and the STOP card is not used. 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 Sep 9 01:53:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e88FqUE08130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 01:52:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e88FqKt08126 for ; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 01:52:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from freenet10.carleton.ca (freenet10 [134.117.136.30]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/NCF_f1_v3.00) with ESMTP id LAA27489 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 11:52:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/NCF-Sun-Client) id LAA09192; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 11:52:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 11:52:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200009081552.LAA09192@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Declarer's Played Card Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is the ending: S 6 South is delarer. West is on contract: 3NT H KJ6 lead, and plays the SK. South D AJ4 thinks he won the previous trick, C --- and leads the C9. I get called, S K2 S QT and I have to decide if the C9 is H 974 H A3 a played card to this trick. D T5 D Q97 As you can see, it doesn't really C --- C --- matter: EW get 3 tricks, NS 4. S --- However, when I discussed this H QT8 with the DIC, he ruled the C9 D K83 a played card; I think it isn't. C 9 There is no dispute that the SK hit the table before the C9. No card other than the C9 was played after the SK. The basic question is, if declarer leads out of turn after the correct player (in this case, LHO) has led to the next trick, is the led card now a card played to this trick? Thanks! Tony (aka ac342) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 9 02:51:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e88GpF908161 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 02:51:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e88Gp8t08157 for ; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 02:51:09 +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 QAA03682 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 16:50:59 GMT Message-ID: <39B91900.88BBFBCF@meteo.fr> Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 18:51:12 +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: [BLML] voided claim Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I had heard about an appeal from the England-Belgium match in Olympiad round of 16, and it has just been made public (Maastricht appeal n° 16). Briefly: at some moment, english declarer claimed the remaining tricks, with the statement to execute a double squeeze; defensers were not convinced and required declarer to play on! declarer accepted to play on and, failing to execute his stated line, lost the last trick. The funny part of this story is maybe that one of the english declarer's teammates was our David Burn listmate whose radical positions about claims are well known. Maybe due to david's sound advices, it seems declarer was aware of the need to make detailed statements but he had not been taught what to do once his claim was contested. Did anybody think such a thing was possible in the final rounds of a world championship? Anyway, congratulations to both teams which nobody expected at that stage of the competition, and especially to blml's proud member for his tremendous 4th ranking. JP Rocafort -- ___________________________________________________ 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 Sep 9 03:07:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e88H70N08193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 03:07:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e88H6rt08189 for ; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 03:06:54 +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 KAA29797; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 10:06:49 -0700 Message-Id: <200009081706.KAA29797@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Declarer's Played Card In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 08 Sep 2000 11:52:08 PDT." <200009081552.LAA09192@freenet10.carleton.ca> Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 10:06:50 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tony Edwards wrote: > This is the ending: S 6 South is delarer. West is on > contract: 3NT H KJ6 lead, and plays the SK. South > D AJ4 thinks he won the previous trick, > C --- and leads the C9. I get called, > S K2 S QT and I have to decide if the C9 is > H 974 H A3 a played card to this trick. > D T5 D Q97 As you can see, it doesn't really > C --- C --- matter: EW get 3 tricks, NS 4. > S --- However, when I discussed this > H QT8 with the DIC, he ruled the C9 > D K83 a played card; I think it isn't. > C 9 There is no dispute that the SK > hit the table before the C9. No > card other than the C9 was played after the SK. > The basic question is, if declarer leads out of turn after the > correct player (in this case, LHO) has led to the next trick, is > the led card now a card played to this trick? Thanks! > Tony (aka ac342) I think it is played. According to the Definitions, a "lead" is the first card played to a trick, so the C9 was not a lead. I looked in the Laws to see if there's any case where the second card played to a trick can be considered a "lead". There is one such case, Law 53C: C. Proper Lead Made Subsequent to Irregular Lead If it was properly the turn to lead of an opponent of the player who led out of turn, that opponent may make his proper lead to the trick of the infraction without his card being deemed played to the irregular lead. When this occurs, the proper lead stands, and all cards played in error to this trick may be withdrawn without penalty. (Law 16C2 applies to a defender.) Thus, suppose in the above ending, declarer (who thought it was his turn to lead) had led the C9 *first*, and then LHO (who knew it was his turn to lead) played the SK. According to the above Law, the SK is not considered played to the trick and does not accept declarer's out-of-turn C9 lead. So the C9 is withdrawn and the SK is led to the trick. However, note that the above Law says "If it was *properly* the turn to lead..." Thus, it applies only when the person who led after another card was played to the trick was the person who really was supposed to lead. It's clear that this Law doesn't provide for a player who *incorrectly* thought it was his turn to lead; and I can't find a provision for such a case anywhere else in the Laws. The only conclusion I can draw is that the irregular card is not to be considered a lead. Therefore, the C9 is considered to be a discard on the spade king. There are no further complications, since declarer is out of spades. If declarer did have spades, the C9 would be considered played but would have to be corrected (L62A-B). My reading of the Laws is that the correction has to be done immediately, i.e. before RHO plays; since the revoke happened out of turn, the correction has to be made out of turn also. -- 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 Sep 9 03:07:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e88H7Za08204 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 03:07:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e88H7Qt08196 for ; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 03:07:26 +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 RL53DRKP; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 12:07:22 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200009072159.RAA23562@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 12:10:39 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: [BLML] Two cards played together Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This seems totally wrong-headed to me. Whatever the player intended to pull out of the hand when two cards land face up on the table, either both have been played intentionally or neither has. (I have seen players drop two cards face up when trying to play a third card.) Nobody intentionally plays two cards together in the same sense that one may lead out of turn or fail to follow suit when still holding a card of the suit led. (See the examples in Law 50B.) Law 58B2 tells us that the player designates which card he proposes to play. He evidently has a choice of intentions at that point, and one may assume the relevant sections of the Laws have been read out to him before he makes the choice. This could be clarified by another example in the Laws. REH >> From: "David Stevenson" >> I believe that if the card was originally >> intended to be played then I think the language of L50B makes it an MPC now. > >If the remaining small card is _known to_ be the one originally intended, I >agree with David. It has to be a MPC. > >> Some people may witter on about the difficulties of finding out the >> player's original intention but that does not affect the Law: we want to >> know where we are. Of course, sometimes the player says what he intended to >> play: otherwise the TD could ask him. > >Why should the TD ask the player? He might ask the opponents whether the >manner of playing or any remarks revealed the original intent, but if the >answer is 'no', or if upon investigation the TD concludes that the intent >is not >known, why try to find out? > >> I would have sympathy for a TD who does not find out what card was >> originally intended if the player does not tell him, and assumes it was the >> card now chosen, but I think he is wrong in Law. > >I don't see why the TD needs to assume anything. If the intent is >unknown, just rule mPC. > >I agree that an SO or NCBO could reasonably adopt either >interpretation, which would be binding in its jurisdiction. >-- 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 Sep 9 04:19:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e88IISx08272 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 04:18:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e88IILt08268 for ; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 04:18:22 +1000 (EST) Received: by esebh02nok with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) id ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 21:18:17 +0300 Message-ID: From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com To: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] voided claim Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 21:18:17 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) 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 e88IIOt08269 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: EXT Jean Pierre Rocafort [mailto:jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr] > Sent: 08. September 2000 19:51 > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: [BLML] voided claim > > > I had heard about an appeal from the England-Belgium match > in Olympiad > round of 16, and it has just been made public (Maastricht > appeal n° 16). > Briefly: at some moment, english declarer claimed the > remaining tricks, > with the statement to execute a double squeeze; defensers were not > convinced and required declarer to play on! declarer accepted > to play on > and, failing to execute his stated line, lost the last trick. > The funny > part of this story is maybe that one of the english > declarer's teammates > was our David Burn listmate whose radical positions about claims are > well known. Maybe due to david's sound advices, it seems declarer was > aware of the need to make detailed statements but he had not > been taught > what to do once his claim was contested. Diclarer did not follow David's sound advices on claiming. A DBclaim on this deal would include careful explanation how the play would proceed; trick after trick. Here declarer merely said that he would execute the double squeeze. That would be an easy case under the DBclaims law one down; under the present law there was one votum separatum. I am pretty sure that the discussion on the AC was very similar to the discussions on BLML claim threads. Unfortunatelly there was BLMLer on the AC to tell us if this was indeed the case. 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 Sep 9 04:21:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e88ILiv08284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 04:21:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e88ILct08280 for ; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 04:21:39 +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 OAA20812 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 14:23:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200009081823.OAA20812@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Alas, Poor Yorick, I Knew Him Well... Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <4.3.2.7.1.20000908082554.00a96ed0@127.0.0.1> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000908082554.00a96ed0@127.0.0.1> Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 14:23:58 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk As Michael goes farther and farther off-topic... :-) On 8 September 2000 at 8:28, Eric Landau wrote: >At 02:13 PM 9/7/00, Thomas wrote: > >>I have some example hands. >>Please detail with which preempt you would >>open them 3rd seat at white (playing weak-twos): >>- KQJTx,x,x,QJ9xxx >>- Axxxxxx,KJxx,void,xx >>- KQTxxx,QJTxx,x,x >>- xxxxxxx,KQJx,x,x >>- KJTxxx,KJTxxx,void,x > >I doubt that Thomas is really interested in what EHAA players would do with >these hands, but I can't resist getting in a plug for my favorite system. > >2C on the first, 2S on the other four. Eric, it is with my heart in my throat that I beg to differ. I would think you would be bidding 2S on the first four, 2H on the fifth one. Of course, remembering the context, while everyone else in the room is responding to p-p, you are responding to 2D-p (partner has T532 Q J8654 A94, according to my wayback machine). This whole thing would have been avoided had N-S been playing EHAA. After all, p-p-p-1NT; 2D is kind of an unusual call (opener's pass limits her hand to 5 points with a 5+card suit, or 9(8 in Maastricht) if balanced, or 12 if 4441). Specifically 4=4=4=1, perhaps? Michael. P.S. I thoroughly enjoyed being able to explain to the director "but partner couldn't have that hand (5-4 in the majors, IIRC). He would have opened 2H." "even with 4=5=2=2 and a bare response?" "yep. See? It's right here on our card". -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 9 04:27:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e88IQuh08298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 04:26:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e88IQnt08294 for ; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 04:26:50 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id TAA04027 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 19:26:41 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 19:26 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Alas, Poor Yorick, I Knew Him Well... 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: <3.0.6.32.20000907103057.008ee750@pop.ulb.ac.be> > At 07:17 7/09/00 +0100, Tim West-meads wrote: > >> > >> > #25 S 4 N E S W > >> > dlr: N H A82 P P P > > > 1N > >> > EW vul D AK732 2D(1) P 2S P > >> > matchpoints C T872 P X P P > >> > S AK96 S QJ87 3D P P P > >> > H KJ96 H T7543 > >> > D T9 D Q (1) alerted, > > > explained > >> > C KJ6 D Q53 as capelletti > > > sp?), > S T532 both majors > >> > H Q > >> > D J8654 result: +130 NS > >> > C A94 > >> > > > > >Surely not. 6-4 (or 7-4) is an excellent holding for a 3rd in > hand >pre-empt and it is impossible to be too weak for a > third-in-hand >pre-empt against vulnerable opponents. (Actually if > partner has either >of these I probably want to be in 3H not 2S). > > AG : I disagree strongly. Anyboby who thinks South can't have > KQJ10x - xxxx - x - xxx should be very convincing in telling me why > (even more so when the explanation might be self-serving, as is the > case here). You can even lower the spade holding to QJ10xx and see > 2S is the least of evils, going only two off against a certain E/W > game. Note also that East's failure to act over 2D places at least 6 points in partner's hand. If playing weak twos I *could not* hold either of the hands you suggest - they are weak two openers when 3rd in hand and nv against v - just check the convention card. Whether they are possible holdings in the actual case is very much a matter of agreement. Something like 876532,Kxx,-,AKxx is *perhaps* a possibility for me/my partner which is why I favour redouble. Much more likely is something like JTxxx,Kxx,Qxxx,A - the 2S bid being a semi-constructive search for game on a miracle double fit. If you want to judge LAs you need to know the pair in questions' methods. Specifically What is their style on 3rd-in-hand weak 2s. What would P-P-P-1N-2D-P-2S show when not playing Cappelletti Of course there *are* pairs for whom pass is an LA, I just can't work out from the information provided if this is one of them. I have just caught up with RGB. Apparently the pair's weak twos show a good six-card suit and they will not open 3S on 7 small. Of course pass is an LA. 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 Sat Sep 9 05:09:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e88J8xt08321 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 05:08:59 +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 e88J8pt08317 for ; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 05:08:53 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 15432 invoked for bounce); 8 Sep 2000 19:08:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.42.140) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 8 Sep 2000 19:08:45 -0000 Message-ID: <01df01c019c8$73248260$8c2a1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Alas, Poor Yorick, I Knew Him Well... Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 20:23:54 +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 "Tim West-meads" > > 3D is a gross violation. > > Not gross. The player had already tried to abide by the laws when > passing 2S. He clearly doesn't consider pass an LA and failed to > think through the alternatives. In the context of his system I think > this shows poor judgement rather than ill-intent. The -200 he would > have expected in 2S (if passed out) was probably a bottom anyway so he > really doesn't look like a man trying to weasel. Let's see: you have x,Axx,AKxxx,Txxx, and overcall 1NT with a natural 2D. Partner bids a natural 2S. Would you consider rebidding your diamonds? Would anybody consider rebidding the diamonds? Now they double. Would you consider rebidding your diamonds now? [I would not even dream of rebidding a five card D suit here.] 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 Sep 9 07:59:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e88LwHW08407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 07:58:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e88LwBt08403 for ; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 07:58:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e88F6kD04619; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 15:06:46 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: "David Stevenson" , "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 14:56:33 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00090815064607.04297@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 08 Sep 2000, David Stevenson wrote: > David J Grabiner wrote: > ==+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Matchpoints, neither vulnerable, ACBL sectional pairs > > K > K98 > AT9843 > J42 > QJ8 A752 > 7543 AQT > KJ76 Q52 > 75 KQ9 > T9643 > J62 > - > AT863 > > W N E S > 1N p > p 2C(1) p 2D(2) > x p p xx > p p p > > (1) Intended as Cappelletti, not alerted > (2) Also not alerted > > ==+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > The director comes to the table with a record of the hand. While she > is studying the auction, she accidentally shows the hand record to the > players. > > Any further play on this hand is not bridge, but how do you assign > scores? > > ==+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > L16B3 requires ArtASs so the players get A+/A+. This is the consensus ruling. Hwoever, is there any basis for restoring equity? E-W were headed for a top when the director was called; it seems that +600 is the most favorable score that was likely for E-W, and -600 the most favorable score that was likely for N-S. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 9 10:14:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e890DQD08469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 10:13:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.worldcom.ch (mail1.worldcom.ch [212.74.176.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e890DIt08465 for ; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 10:13:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (portmp049.worldcom.ch [212.74.135.49]) by mail.worldcom.ch (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA24854 for ; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 02:12:56 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000909021322.008651e0@worldcom.ch> X-Sender: fsb@worldcom.ch X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 02:13:22 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Yvan Calame Subject: Re: [BLML] voided claim In-Reply-To: <39B91900.88BBFBCF@meteo.fr> 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 e890DMt08466 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 18:51 08.09.00 +0200, JPR wrote: > I had heard about an appeal from the England-Belgium match in Olympiad >round of 16, and it has just been made public (Maastricht appeal n° 16): ====================================================================== Appeal No. 16 ====================================================================== Belgium v England Open Teams Round of 16 Board 30. Dealer East. None Vul. S 3 H K Q 10 9 8 D A 5 4 C K J 5 4 S 4 S Q J 9 8 5 H 7 4 2 H A 5 D K Q J 8 D 7 6 3 2 C A 9 7 6 3 C Q 10 S A K 10 7 6 2 H J 6 3 D 10 9 C 8 2 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Engel Hallberg V. Middelem Simpson - - 2S (1) Pass 2NT 3H Pass 4H All Pass (1) 5 spades and 4+ of a minor ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Lead: The CQ. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Result: 9 tricks, N/S -50 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- TD's statement of Facts: North claimed at the following position: S 3 H Q 9 D A 5 C K J 5 S 4 S Q J 9 8 H -- H -- D K Q 8 D 7 6 2 C 9 7 6 3 C 10 S A K 10 7 6 2 H -- D 9 C 2 North stated he would make the contract on a double squeeze, provided that the information about the opening bid was accurate. At the time of the claim, East/West requested North to play the hand out. North now played and misplayed the final two cards. This table was open on Vugraph. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Director: Ruled that the claim was okay. According to Law 68D, all play subsequent to a claim is voided and the Director adjudicates the claim based on the claimer's statement. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ruling: Score adjusted to 4H making, N/S +420 to both sides. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Relevant Laws: Laws 68D, 70A, 70B. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- East/West appealed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Present: All players. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Players: East/West stated that declarer's statement did not contain enough detail for them to understand how the squeeze would operate, so they asked him to play it out. Had they known that by law they could not ask declarer to play the board out, they would have called the Director to get declarer to make a clarifying statement. North/South said that declarer stated that if the information he had been given about the opening bid were accurate (i.e., East had 5 spades and 4+ of a minor) he would make the hand on a double squeeze. Both pairs indicated that they were unaware of the requirement in the laws that once a claim is made, play must cease. North agreed to play the hand out but was somewhat upset that his claim had been contested (although this was not personal against the East/West players). He cashed his two top hearts and two top clubs and East was forced to come down to three spades and a singleton diamond. He then crossed to dummy with a spade and cashed the second top spade in the three-card ending, squeezing West between the minors. However, because he was unsettled about having to play out what he considered an obvious claim situation he lost his mental focus and discarded the wrong card from his hand, thus failing by one trick. As North/South were leaving the playing area they saw a Director and inquired about North being "forced" to play out the hand. --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Committee: The Committee found that by law any play following a claim was void and the Director (or a Committee) is to adjudicate the claim based only on the claimer's statement. Had North been properly asked to elaborate on his statement of "double squeeze" he would have explained that he would cash his top hearts and clubs (as he did), forcing East to save three spades and unguard diamonds. The two top spades would then force West to unguard one of the minors, after which North would pitch the minor West kept. In effect, this would have prevented North from having the opportunity to commit the careless error he ultimately made. Since his error could not by law prejudice the adjudication of the claim, this was essentially a book ruling and the Committee had no reason to reverse it, nor indeed can they change the law. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Committee's decision: Director's ruling upheld. Score adjusted to 4H made four, N/S +420, for both pairs. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dissenting Opinion (Jeffrey Polisner): Since the law assumes careless play in determining whether a claim without a stated line of play (which actually occurred at the table in the part of the play which was cancelled) should be allowed, I believe a player should not be awarded a score which he could not actually achieve at the table. Players must be educated to state a complete line of play at the time of their claim or be subject to assumptions of careless play. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Appeals Committee: John Wignall (Chairman, New Zealand), Richard Colker (Scribe, USA), Jens Auken (Denmark), Jeffrey Polisner (USA). --------------------------------------------------------------------- Deposit: Returned. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 9 11:24:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e891NhP08501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 11:23:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.email.msn.com (cpimssmtpu08.email.msn.com [207.46.181.30]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e891Nbt08497 for ; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 11:23:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from uymfdlvk - 63.23.28.174 by email.msn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 18:22:45 -0700 Message-ID: <06ca01c019fc$7dbc0160$d3431c3f@uymfdlvk> Reply-To: "Chris Pisarra" From: "Chris Pisarra" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000909021322.008651e0@worldcom.ch> Subject: Re: [BLML] voided claim Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 18:22:57 -0700 Organization: his wit's end MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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 > Both pairs indicated that they were unaware of the requirement in the > laws that once a claim is made, play must cease. I know that it unreasonable to expect players to be familiar with all the ins and outs of the law. But is it unreasonable to expect that world class players be better informed than this? Isn't there a point where players can be required to know at least the basics of the mechanics of the game? Surely these four players didn't get to the round of 16 in a world championship without ever having claimed. Next week someone will contend that he didn't know he had to follow suit. Chris -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 9 21:25:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e89BO5808772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 21:24:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e89BNxt08768 for ; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 21:23:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot23.domain2.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id oa266618 for ; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 21:21:36 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-012-p-228-52.tmns.net.au ([203.54.228.52]) by mail2.bigpond.com (Claudes-Rattly-MailRouter V2.9b 3/5517842); 09 Sep 2000 21:21:35 Message-ID: <014201c019f4$0fd05500$34e436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] voided claim Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 10:22:38 +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 Chris Pisarra wrote: >Jean Pierre Rocafort wrote: >> Both pairs indicated that they were unaware of the requirement >> in the laws that once a claim is made, play must cease. > > I know that it unreasonable to expect players to be familiar >with all the ins and outs of the law. But is it unreasonable to expect that >world class players be better informed than this? Please be more tolerant. Who says that we BLMLers know so much? > Isn't there a point where players can be required to know at least >the basics of the mechanics of the game? Not when the Laws change every decade (or less). Older players can, and should, be expected to become easily confused about the Laws, with some Laws of Bridge changing in 1997 and 1993. > Surely these four players didn't get to the round of 16 in a world >championship without ever having claimed. True. In fact this particular declarer would have made far more claims than most bridge players. > Next week someone will contend that he didn't know he had >to follow suit. Or even contend that the Laws as currently written do not require that a bid be sufficient (i.e an insufficient bid is not an infraction)? :) Is it possible that this declarer plays most of his bridge in a club where the Laws of Bridge (1993) state that: "when declarer ... has made a claim, play is temporarily suspended ..." and also state: "When a claim or concession is not allowed, declarer must play on ...."? Do you think I have gone barmy (= crazy, ref previous BLML thread)? Do you? Have you figured out what this is all about? Have you? Did you know that Gunnar (the declarer) is a rubber bridge player? Admittedly I couldn't open the English Laws of Rubber Bridge on DWS's website, so my quotes come from the American version of the Laws. You really expect Gunnar to realise that the 1997 Duplicate Laws differ from the 1993 Rubber Laws regarding claims? Chris, did you realise that they are different and that the Laws of Bridge (Rubber Bridge) on the ACBL website include the above quotes? Do you have a little more sympathy for declarer now? This AC ruling was absolutely correct. Imagine the poor declarer's thoughts - in my regular rubber game back in London, my valid claim would be accepted courteously and properly by my opponents, but here I am slumming it in some inferior bridge environment where an everyday claim is not accepted. No wonder he lost concentration. Of course, if this is what did happen, Gunnar had to retain a stiff upper (adopted) lip, out of courtesy to his opponents. That is the way that I believe the TGR Big Game (of rubber) is played - in a gentlemanly manner, with fair play expected and followed routinely, with no consequent need to call for the rules book. Food for thought for us duplicate players, me included. 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 Sat Sep 9 22:01:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e89C1Tp08795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 22:01:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e89C1Mt08791 for ; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 22:01:23 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id NAA10741 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 13:01:13 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 13:01 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Alas, Poor Yorick, I Knew Him Well... 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: <01df01c019c8$73248260$8c2a1dc2@rabbit> Thomas Dehn wrote: > "Tim West-meads" > > > 3D is a gross violation. > > > > Not gross. The player had already tried to abide by the laws > > when passing 2S. He clearly doesn't consider pass an LA and > > failed to think through the alternatives. In the context of his > > system I think this shows poor judgement rather than ill-intent. > > The -200 he would have expected in 2S (if passed out) was > > probably a bottom anyway so he really doesn't look like a man > > trying to weasel. > > Let's see: you have x,Axx,AKxxx,Txxx, and overcall > 1NT with a natural 2D. Partner bids a natural 2S. > Would you consider rebidding your diamonds? No (but I probably wouldn't pass if pard had denied 5+ spades) > Would anybody consider rebidding the diamonds? > Now they double. > Would you consider rebidding your diamonds now? Again no. I know that my 2D would not be misinterpreted. > [I would not even dream of rebidding > a five card D suit here.] Fine. But what is actually going through North's mind? Perhaps.. Oh shit, we are playing Capelleti aren't we. Of course 2 spades is an unlikely bid given partner's initial pass - is it so unusual that I can be allowed to "wake up", no I don't think so. "Pass" Confident "double" from East Does that change things? Yes I think it does. I'm pretty sure that even without the UI most players in this situation would realise a wheel had come off. Now that I'm "free to wake up" what bid would be best? Anything could be a disaster but pard has at most 6/7 cards in the majors, he may well have diamonds, I'll try 3D. I disagree with North's judgement that "most players would wake up" - I think many would but a significant minority wouldn't. So pass remains an LA. However, North has made an honest attempt to be ethical and made a poor judgement *under pressure at the table*. This is a standard adjustment, and not a gross violation or deliberate attempt to "take advantage". Had Tony originally posed his question as "Is the AI from auction to sufficient to allow a wake-up by North" the debate might have been less one-sided. 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 Sep 9 22:16:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e89CFl908812 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 22:15:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e89CFht08808 for ; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 22:15:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot23.domain2.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ba267359 for ; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 22:11:59 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-012-p-228-52.tmns.net.au ([203.54.228.52]) by mail2.bigpond.com (Claudes-Industrial-MailRouter V2.9b 3/5526307); 09 Sep 2000 22:11:58 Message-ID: <01bf01c019fb$19541380$34e436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 11:13:01 +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 J Grabiner wrote: >>> The director comes to the table with a record of the hand. While >>> she is studying the auction, she accidentally shows the hand >>> record to the players. >>> >>> Any further play on this hand is not bridge, but how do you assign >>> scores? >>> David Stevenson wrote: >> >> L16B3 requires ArtASs so the players get A+/A+. >> David Grabiner continued: >This is the consensus ruling. > > However, is there any basis for restoring equity? E-W were > headed for a top when the director was called; it seems that > +600 is the most favorable score that was likely for E-W, > and -600 the most favorable score that was likely for N-S. Fairly random comments follow; read them at your own risk... The precise words at the beginning of Law 12C1: "When, owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained" were of slight concern to me until I realised that the irregularity in this case was the departure from Law 81C4 ("ensure the orderly progress of the game"). I could point out, while David Burn isn't watching, that the definition of "game" in the Laws may make South's XX a brilliant call. [obscure :-)) ] If it weren't for Law 81C4, we could go from Law 16B3 to Law 12A2, then directly to Law 88, bypassing Law 12C1 if need be. We still get to A+/A+ in the end Law 82C (Director's Error) does not seem to be the appropriate Law because the Director had not given her ruling yet. I would very much like to award 60% to NS and 80% to EW but the Laws do seem to prevent this. On a very lucky day I suppose EW might score 80% for the session and thereby save me. :) If we were at YCBC, I guess the Director might buy EW a couple of drinks as compensation under Law 81C6 (rectifying an error)? :) Sorry that I'm not much help on this 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/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 9 23:17:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e89DGWr08850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 23:16:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe24.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e89DGQt08846 for ; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 23:16:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 06:16:18 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [195.64.60.246] From: "David Stevenson" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] The untold story Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 15:16:36 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_009D_01C01A70.F21D26F0" 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: 09 Sep 2000 13:16:18.0962 (UTC) FILETIME=[24014720:01C01A60] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_009D_01C01A70.F21D26F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Recently I described a hand from a minor English national event = where there was a sequence such as 2D [FG] =3D 2H [relay] =3D 2NT =3D 3H =3D 3NT =3D P =3D 3H was a transfer per system, but forgotten. 3NT was natural even = if 3H was a transfer. The opening leader said that she might easily = have not led a heart if correctly informed, and some people here agreed. The interest in the hand lies in the fact that we believe it to be = the first L12C3 ruling by an EBU TD. It was eventually ruled as 40% = 3NT+1, 40% 3NT=3D, 20% 4S-1. Incidentally, Herman and I have come to a couple of agreements on = presentation: one is that when expressing a weighted score, we show it = with the greatest N/S score first. Also, we follow the style that = scores are always expressed as NS+ or NS-, with no slash in the NS as a = matter of style. We also found out after complaints that when = publishing weighted scores they should be on different lines. Thus the = above decision would be expressed as: Both sides receive: 40% 3NT+1 (NS+630) plus 40% 3NT=3D (NS+600) plus 20% 4S-1 (NS-100) As to how this is translated into MPs [or imps] the match points are = worked out *first*, then the weighting applied. I have written an = article on this subject for the Australian Director's Bulletin, and will = copy it here. --=20 David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Now in Maastricht, Netherlands Copy emails to both eddresses http://www.blakjak.com ------=_NextPart_000_009D_01C01A70.F21D26F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
 
    Recently I described = a hand from=20 a minor English national event where there was a sequence such = as
 
2D [FG] =3D 2H [relay] =3D 2NT =3D 3H = =3D 3NT =3D P=20 =3D
 
    3H was a transfer = per system,=20 but forgotten.  3NT was natural even if 3H was a transfer.  = The=20 opening leader said that she might easily have not led a heart if = correctly=20 informed, and some people here agreed.
 
    The interest in the = hand lies in=20 the fact that we believe it to be the first L12C3 ruling by an EBU = TD.  It=20 was eventually ruled as 40% 3NT+1, 40% 3NT=3D, 20% 4S-1.
 
    Incidentally, Herman = and I have=20 come to a couple of agreements on presentation: one is that when = expressing a=20 weighted score, we show it with the greatest N/S score first.  = Also, we=20 follow the style that scores are always expressed as NS+ or NS-, with no = slash=20 in the NS as a matter of style.  We also found out after complaints = that=20 when publishing weighted scores they should be on different lines.  = Thus=20 the above decision would be expressed as:
 
Both sides receive:
40% 3NT+1 (NS+630) plus
40% 3NT=3D (NS+600) plus
20% 4S-1 (NS-100)
 
    As to how this is = translated=20 into MPs [or imps] the match points are worked out *first*, then the = weighting=20 applied.  I have written an article on this subject for the = Australian=20 Director's Bulletin, and will copy it here.
 
 
--
David=20 Stevenson          &nbs= p;          =20 <bluejak666@hotmail.com>
= Liverpool,=20 England,=20 UK            = ;       =20 <bridge@blakjak.com>
Now in=20 Maastricht, Netherlands
Copy emails to both = eddresses    =20 http://www.blakjak.com
------=_NextPart_000_009D_01C01A70.F21D26F0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 9 23:30:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e89DUCD08863 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 23:30:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e89DU8t08859 for ; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 23:30:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot23.domain2.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id pa268127 for ; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 23:19:12 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-012-p-228-52.tmns.net.au ([203.54.228.52]) by mail2.bigpond.com (Claudes-Emotive-MailRouter V2.9b 3/5536151); 09 Sep 2000 23:19:10 Message-ID: <023d01c01a04$7d3090a0$34e436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Alas, Poor Yorick, I Knew Him Well... Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 12:20:12 +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 Tim West-meads wrote: >Had Tony originally posed his question as "Is the AI from auction to >sufficient to allow a wake-up by North" the debate might have been >less one-sided. He did, to rgb. Tony posed the question to rgb as a straight bidding problem, with no UI/AI references, and every single respondent thought that pass was clearcut. For rgb posters to be in complete agreement is akin to total agreement on a MSC problem. 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 Sep 9 23:37:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e89Db5U08875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 23:37:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e89Daxt08871 for ; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 23:37:00 +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 13XkoQ-0009Fo-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 13:36:55 +0000 Message-ID: <3hXYszCHqju5EwYU@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 14:26:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director References: <01bf01c019fb$19541380$34e436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <01bf01c019fb$19541380$34e436cb@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 <01bf01c019fb$19541380$34e436cb@gillp.bigpond.com>, Peter Gill writes >David J Grabiner wrote: >>>> The director comes to the table with a record of the hand. While >>>> she is studying the auction, she accidentally shows the hand >>>> record to the players. >>>> snip >If it weren't for Law 81C4, we could go from Law 16B3 to >Law 12A2, then directly to Law 88, bypassing Law 12C1 >if need be. We still get to A+/A+ in the end > >Law 82C (Director's Error) does not seem to be the appropriate >Law because the Director had not given her ruling yet. I think L82B1 is the most useful route here. > >I would very much like to award 60% to NS and 80% to EW but >the Laws do seem to prevent this. On a very lucky day I suppose >EW might score 80% for the session and thereby save me. :) > >If we were at YCBC, I guess the Director might buy EW a couple >of drinks as compensation under Law 81C6 (rectifying an error)? :) I'd be awarding 60/60 for sure. The drinks probably only if someone could persuade me that a D7 last trick opportunity had been forfeited. This particular case doesn't arise in the UK as most games have curtain cards and the rectification is done from those not the hand records. > >Sorry that I'm not much help on this one, > >Peter Gill >Australia. -- 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 Sun Sep 10 00:04:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e89E4m308925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Sep 2000 00:04:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe41.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.78]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e89E4ft08921 for ; Sun, 10 Sep 2000 00:04:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 07:04:34 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [195.64.60.246] From: "David Stevenson" To: "BLML" Cc: "Max Bavin" Subject: [BLML] More unfinished business Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 16:04:54 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Sep 2000 14:04:34.0280 (UTC) FILETIME=[E1BFBE80:01C01A66] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A player cue-bids a void and is passed out. However, he eventually finds the cue-bid was doubled, so he had another call. The other players assumed he had passed once he took his bidding cards away. How did we rule? It was noted that the NBB had made a regulation that any form of final casual pass was accepted [even if not encouraged]. However, I believe there is a big difference between a positive action and a negative action. If a player touches an earlier pass card, says pass, touches an opponent's pass card, waves at the table, or does anything else positive that is clearly intended as a pass then it is reasonable that we take that as a pass. But removing the bidding cards is different. I believe the Director should make some effort to find out whether the player concerned normally does it this way. If he does, then there is little reason to give him much sympathy. However, if he does not, you cannot assume he has passed when he has done no such thing. In England, there is a lot of casual final passing, but few people remove their bidding cards without other action. I believe that there should be a strong disincentive. In other words, if a player passes by touching a pass card, little harm is done, and the practice should be tolerated: players that make a final pass by taking the bidding cards away should be dissuaded by PPs until they do so no longer. The original query came from England. The NBB regulation does not apply, of course, but common-sense would accept it for positive actions. In the actual case I would rule that the player has not passed: he took no positive action, and we know he did not mean to pass - well, we do not know it, but it seems a reasonable judgement that he did not intend to play in a doubled cue-bid holding a void. Furthermore, he wrote down 4H undoubled on his score-card, while the other three wrote down 4H doubled. The lead was made, partner put down the dummy, and play commenced. After five tricks declarer showed out in trumps, everyone looked surprised - and BLML readers assumed play stopped. Why, I do not know: in fact the problem over what the contract was discovered at the end of play when declarer was stopped from writing -250 on his score-card. Now, my sympathy [unlike most readers of BLML] was firmly in declarer's favour, unless he often took his bidding cards away to pass, unusual in England. But what of dummy? Why did he not say "Did you pass, partner?" or something else? Why did he meekly put the dummy down? Once he did not, both sides were at fault. Despite my well-known dislike of ArtASs I believe this board to be unplayable. I feel A-/A- is the only equitable score. Both sides are at fault. I would also tell both sides that if ever they passed in this manner again - or accepted such a pass from an opponent - I would issue a heavy PP. The practice must be stamped out. At the very least, someone [anyone] could have said "Did you pass?". One final note: when I played at Schipol, I found that the Dutch pairs often passed in this way. But the difference is that even without speaking I usually was certain that they had passed: it was a *positive* action. Of course, that is accepted even if not correct. But otherwise players should be dissuaded, and their opponents and partner should learn to ask a suitable question to make sure this situation does not recur. cc Max Bavin -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Now in Maastricht, Netherlands Copy emails to both eddresses http://www.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 Sun Sep 10 00:14:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e89EEkO08992 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Sep 2000 00:14:46 +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 e89EEdt08988 for ; Sun, 10 Sep 2000 00:14:40 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id PAA06255 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 15:14:31 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 15:14 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] voided claim 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: <014201c019f4$0fd05500$34e436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Peter Gill wrote: > Chris Pisarra wrote: > >Jean Pierre Rocafort wrote: > >> Both pairs indicated that they were unaware of the requirement > >> in the laws that once a claim is made, play must cease. > > > > I know that it unreasonable to expect players to be familiar > > with all the ins and outs of the law. But is it unreasonable to > > expect that world class players be better informed than this? > > Please be more tolerant. Who says that we BLMLers know so much? I think you would be hard-pushed to find 4 regulars here who didn't. > Did you know that Gunnar (the declarer) is a rubber bridge player? Hard to believe that all 4 players were "real" players - though quite a splendid idea if true! Like Chris I would expect regular duplicate players at this level to be aware of the law. > Admittedly I couldn't open the English Laws of Rubber Bridge > on DWS's website, so my quotes come from the American version of There is no "English" edition that I know of - just the international one agreed by ACBL (Western Hemisphere and Philippines), EBL (Europe excluding Spain/Portugal), Portland Club (everywhere else). The Portland club includes representatives of all 4 British bodies. Another lesson? We, at least can agree on the laws! > the Laws. You really expect Gunnar to realise that the 1997 > Duplicate Laws differ from the 1993 Rubber Laws regarding > claims? No > did you realise that they are different and that the Laws of > Bridge (Rubber Bridge) on the ACBL website include the above > quotes? Yes > Do you have a little more sympathy for declarer now? > > This AC ruling was absolutely correct. Imagine the poor > declarer's thoughts - in my regular rubber game back in > London, my valid claim would be accepted courteously and properly > by my opponents, but here I am slumming it in some inferior bridge > environment where an everyday claim is not accepted. No wonder he > lost concentration. Some might quibble over whether the claim statement was "comprehensive", as required, under L69. I think it qualifies given the expected standard of the opposition. Although the average standard of card-play at Maastricht probably wasn't up to TGR standards by the time one gets to the semi-final one might expect it to get close:-) > Of course, if this is what did happen, Gunnar had to retain a stiff > upper (adopted) lip, out of courtesy to his opponents. That is the > way that I believe the TGR Big Game (of rubber) is played - in a > gentlemanly manner, with fair play expected and followed routinely, > with no consequent need to call for the rules book. Food for thought > for us duplicate players, me included. Not just the big game, such behaviour is also normal at £10/£5 and £3 tables (some players are ladylike rather than gentlemanly!). As anywhere the law book is required fairly regularly for dealing with LOOTs, BOOTs etc. I have called for a "claim ruling" once in ten years. Declarer claimed, his RHO (who I think was about to lead a heart) threw in his hand onto dummy. LHO pointed out that the claim was defective if he ducked a diamond, I (dummy) and mentally already placing the heart lead on the table disagreed with his analysis (he meant on an immediate diamond lead). Before this could be resolved I suggested we "get a ruling". The laws said "The claim must be permitted if either defender has allowed his cards to be mixed with those of another player..". At the time Declarer, LHO, and I all thought this was crazy and agreed never again to call for a ruling in this situation. Looking back I strongly suspect that a) RHO knew this law, and b) he knew he was about to lead a heart, thus he conceded to ensure equity (the claim was rock solid on a heart lead). In fact it is an excellent law. If one is unlucky enough to cut the awkward person who never tries to understand claims and insists on having it played out you just chuck your cards into dummy and she (there is only one at the club) has no recourse. If there is genuine doubt over the claim you just talk it through (quickly retrieving the cards from dummy if necessary!) before agreeing the score. Tim (St John's Wood regular, occasional TGRer but never more than £10) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 10 01:14:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e89FDgB09031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Sep 2000 01:13:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e89FDZt09027 for ; Sun, 10 Sep 2000 01:13:36 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id QAA17877 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 16:13:28 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 16:13 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Alas, Poor Yorick, I Knew Him Well... 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: <023d01c01a04$7d3090a0$34e436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> > Tim West-meads wrote: > >Had Tony originally posed his question as "Is the AI from auction > >to sufficient to allow a wake-up by North" the debate might have > >been less one-sided. > > He did, to rgb. > Tony posed the question to rgb as a straight bidding problem, > with no UI/AI references, and every single respondent thought that > pass was clearcut. I don't think so. Reading the question on RGB it just would not occur that "I might have forgotten we were playing Cappelletti". In this situation North's peers are "Those who play Cappelletti and sometimes forget". I think it is generally agreed that "waking up" is allowed if, and only if, the auction is "sufficiently unusual that no other explanation really fits". This is much harder to poll (you might try "you are sitting in for one hand and aren't sure what defences partner thinks you play over 1NT" but even that doesn't capture it). Note also that several respondents (including one P.Gill) said "I wouldn't be here, but.." so they are hardly North's peers. I agree with Tony's original ruling but I don't think the way he posed the question makes the results all that meaningful to the original declarer. > For rgb posters to be in complete agreement > is akin to total agreement on a MSC problem. Even more unusual, IMO. 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 Sun Sep 10 16:40:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8A6c8k09447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Sep 2000 16:38:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gateway.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.76]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8A6c1t09443 for ; Sun, 10 Sep 2000 16:38:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from elnet.msk.ru ([194.190.217.87]) by gateway.telekom.ru (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8A6bn714845 for ; Sun, 10 Sep 2000 10:37:50 +0400 (MSD) Message-ID: <39BB2B3B.50AAE32B@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 10:33:33 +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] Congratulations References: <00c801c00e92$44e13d80$67da36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <39AA998D.9B55E03C@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:) My (and ours) congratulations to D.Burn and his teammates for their outstanding achievement 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 Sun Sep 10 19:19:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8A9IJE09623 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Sep 2000 19:18:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail4.svr.pol.co.uk (mail4.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.211]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8A9IDt09619 for ; Sun, 10 Sep 2000 19:18:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem4294967204.people.dialup.pol.co.uk ([195.92.3.92] helo=biggy) by mail4.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #0) id 13Y3FZ-0007Ku-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 10 Sep 2000 10:18:09 +0100 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000910102010.019fafd0@pop.swinternet.net> X-Sender: brighton-bridge.swinternet.co.uk@pop.swinternet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 10:22:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Dave Armstrong Subject: Re: [BLML] Congratulations In-Reply-To: <39BB2B3B.50AAE32B@elnet.msk.ru> References: <00c801c00e92$44e13d80$67da36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <39AA998D.9B55E03C@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 07:33 10/09/2000 , you wrote: >Hi all:) >My (and ours) congratulations to D.Burn and his teammates for their >outstanding achievement >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/ My sentiments exactly. And, I hate to have to say it, but equally well done to the Daily Bulletin team. Dave 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 Sun Sep 10 20:47:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8AAkMp09663 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Sep 2000 20:46:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8AAkFt09659 for ; Sun, 10 Sep 2000 20:46:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d277.iae.nl [212.61.5.23]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 7333C20F31 for ; Sun, 10 Sep 2000 12:46:09 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <004301c01b14$8f9e8380$17053dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Fw: [BLML] Board spoiled by director Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 12:46:54 +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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk When David takes a break he always invents a marvellous story. But a TD never shows a hand record. That did not happen in the past and will never occur in the future. It does not belong to his tasks. Maybe somebody will show a hand record accidentally. Listen to me; it happened that a was at the table as a spectator.and I saw the following: The TD was summoned because of mistaken explanation (not alerted). It was to late to apply Law 21 but maybe Law 40C may be applied after play ends. The TD ruled correctly: "Play continues." When the TD has left the table suddenly a paper whirled down on the table maybe from heaven. The players look at the paper in wonder and discover that it is the hand record of the board they are playing. The TD is summoned again. The TD will apply Law16B. There are not three substitudes hanging at the bar so LawB2 is no solution and LawB3 will do. The TD will apply Laws 16B, 12C and 40C with respect to the bidding and final contract. Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "David J Grabiner" To: Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 1:05 PM Subject: [BLML] Board spoiled by director > > Matchpoints, neither vulnerable, ACBL sectional pairs > > K > K98 > AT9843 > J42 > QJ8 A752 > 7543 AQT > KJ76 Q52 > 75 KQ9 > T9643 > J62 > - > AT863 > > W N E S > 1N p > p 2C(1) p 2D(2) > x p p xx > p p p > > (1) Intended as Cappelletti, not alerted > (2) Also not alerted > > After the SQ lead, North remembers that Cappelletti is alertable, and > informs the opponents. West calls the director (actually, this is > North's responsibility). > > The director comes to the table with a record of the hand. While she > is studying the auction, she accidentally shows the hand record to the > players. > > Any further play on this hand is not bridge, but how do you assign > scores? > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Sep 11 02:42:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8AGfSk09891 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 02:41:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.211.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e8AGfKt09887 for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 02:41:22 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 61334 invoked for bounce); 10 Sep 2000 16:41:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.58.192) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 10 Sep 2000 16:41:13 -0000 Message-ID: <024901c01b46$2b5dc480$a8391dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Alas, Poor Yorick, I Knew Him Well... Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 18:42:15 +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 "Tim West-meads" wrote: > In-Reply-To: <01df01c019c8$73248260$8c2a1dc2@rabbit> > Thomas Dehn wrote: > > "Tim West-meads" > > > > 3D is a gross violation. > > > > > > Not gross. The player had already tried to abide by the laws > > > when passing 2S. He clearly doesn't consider pass an LA and > > > failed to think through the alternatives. In the context of his > > > system I think this shows poor judgement rather than ill-intent. > > > The -200 he would have expected in 2S (if passed out) was > > > probably a bottom anyway so he really doesn't look like a man > > > trying to weasel. > > > > Let's see: you have x,Axx,AKxxx,Txxx, and overcall > > 1NT with a natural 2D. Partner bids a natural 2S. > > Would you consider rebidding your diamonds? > > No (but I probably wouldn't pass if pard had denied 5+ spades) > > > Would anybody consider rebidding the diamonds? > > Now they double. > > Would you consider rebidding your diamonds now? > > Again no. I know that my 2D would not be misinterpreted. > > > [I would not even dream of rebidding > > a five card D suit here.] > > Fine. But what is actually going through North's mind? > > Perhaps.. > > Oh shit, we are playing Capelleti aren't we. Of course 2 spades is an > unlikely bid given partner's initial pass - is it so unusual that I > can be allowed to "wake up", no I don't think so. > > "Pass" > Confident "double" from East > > Does that change things? Yes I think it does. I'm pretty sure that > even without the UI most players in this situation would realise a > wheel had come off. I disagree here. AI does not indicate that partner does not have spades, and it certainly does not indicate that partner thinks we have both majors. It is quite possible for partner to have spades and them to double 2S. > Now that I'm "free to wake up" what bid would be > best? Anything could be a disaster but pard has at most 6/7 cards in > the majors, he may well have diamonds, I'll try 3D. You already did show your diamond suit, and it seems that partner preferred his spades over your diamonds. > I disagree with North's judgement that "most players would wake up" - > I think many would but a significant minority wouldn't. So pass > remains an LA. However, North has made an honest attempt to be > ethical and made a poor judgement *under pressure at the table*. > > This is a standard adjustment, and not a gross violation or deliberate > attempt to "take advantage". The *gross* violation is not the running from 2S doubled, but running into 3D to make it clear to partner that N has diamonds, and not both majors. I see much less problem with SOS-redoubling 2S, or with bidding, say pass pass pass 1NT 2D(a) pass 2S pass 3C Oh, partner might not get this, so lets wait until they double 2S and then run to 3D :->>> 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 Sep 11 07:00:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8AKxJU10061 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 06:59:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8AKxCt10057 for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 06:59:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id QAA04285 for ; Sun, 10 Sep 2000 16:59:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA26291 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 10 Sep 2000 16:59:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 16:59:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200009102059.QAA26291@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David J Grabiner > Hwoever, is there any basis for restoring equity? E-W were headed for > a top when the director was called; Wasn't it Grattan who pointed out that L12C1 says _at least_ 60% for an artificial avg+? There seems to be a strong case for 100% this time. Also, why should the NS score be 60%? Yes, TD error has prevented them from completing the board, but they were already guilty of an infraction. Surely "each side non-offending" means _from the moment of the TD error_, not from the beginning of the board. I'm not sure what score to give, but 40% looks reasonable. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 11 12:11:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8B2ABP10207 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 12:10:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8B2A2t10203 for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 12:10:02 +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 MAA18489 for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 12:05:45 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 13:06:18 +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 2000091113032208:14179 ; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 13:03:22 +1000 Received: by immcbrn1.immi.gov.au(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.3 (733.2 10-16-1998)) id 4A256957.00110B9F ; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 13:06:10 +1000 X-Lotus-FromDomain: IMMI To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-ID: <4A256957.001109B3.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 13:07:32 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Screen saver Mime-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 11/09/2000 01:03:22 PM, Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 11/09/2000 01:03:23 PM, Serialize complete at 11/09/2000 01:03:23 PM Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Reference: January 1998 Bridge World, page 16 In a match of the 1997 Bermuda Bowl round robin, West held: A83 QJ1097 AJ2 94 The bidding commenced: W N E S 1H 2C 3H 4H P 4NT P Now South, West's screenmate, bid 5C quickly. West *rectified the count* by passing 5C intentionally slowly. North now bid 6C, which West doubled for one off. Did West violate L73D2, L72A6 and L72B1? Or is *screen saving* entirely ethical and proper, since the screen is supposed to conceal fast calls as well as huddles? What if West held a different hand, such as xxx AKQJx Jxx Jx, which had minimal defence against 6C? Is it now ethical for West to pass in tempo after South's quick 5C? 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 Mon Sep 11 14:20:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8B45h110259 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Sep 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 oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8B45at10254 for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:05:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.92] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13YKqZ-0003nK-00; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 05:05:31 +0100 Message-ID: <000d01c01ba5$a3be85e0$5c5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ed Reppert" Cc: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal #3 Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 04:30:33 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: David Stevenson Cc: Bridge Laws Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 1:44 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal #3 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > It is helpful to assume that an AC that has a special > >reason not to follow normal procedure has a reason rather than to assume > >they are wrong. > > Indeed. However, the fact they have (apparently deliberately) > concealed both the method by which they arrived at 7 imps and the > reason for that concealment is, to say the least, curious. > > Regards, > > Ed > +=+ I have not read previous messages in this thread. 'Normal procedure' interests me; what is 'normal'? I thought the procedure here was entirely 'normal' in terms of the WBF stated policy? ~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 Sep 11 14:20:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8B45oA10263 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:05:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8B45et10258 for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:05:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.92] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13YKqa-0003nK-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 05:05:32 +0100 Message-ID: <000e01c01ba5$a487f060$5c5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] WBF Committee minutes Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 04:39:43 +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; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 16:54:37 +1000 (EST) Received: by esebh01nok with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) id ; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 09:52:42 +0300 Message-ID: From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com To: richard.hills@immi.gov.au, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Screen saver Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 09:52:42 +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 "Screen Huddles" by David Stevenson from Bulletin#9 In the past, there has been a considerable problem with unauthorised information caused by breaks in tempo, even behind screens. There was an important decision rendered in Lille in 1998 (Appeal 22, Nether-lands v USA: full details available at http://home.world-com. ch/~fsb/98wbc_appeals.html) where a North American player delayed the passing of the tray beyond the normal tempo of a normal auction. His intention was merely to normalise the tempo to that of the ac-tual auction which was slow throughout, but his Dutch opponent on the other side of the screen felt there had been a tempo break and acted ethically by following Law 73C, and missed a slam. The Appeals Committee granted the slam. The point was that the method of normalising tempo was being practised in North America at that time but not elsewhere. Now it has been adopted for WBF tour-naments. In a simple auction there is considered no tempo break when the tray returns within fifteen sec-onds. So it is desirable to adjust the tempo so that it does take fifteen seconds. If there are two quick calls, then it helps to wait some time before pushing the tray.Thus the players the other side of the screen receiving the tray after fifteen seconds do not know whether either of the players had a problem, or which of them, or whether the tray was just delayed. Note that this helps even when only one side is bid-ding, the other passing throughout: if the tray returns every time after fifteen seconds, then the other side of the screen still cannot distinguish between a tempo break, and a deliberate delay of the tray. Players should get in the habit of not returning the tray until fifteen sec-onds have elapsed. Fifteen seconds exactly? No, that would be difficult, and then it would still be possible to tell when a return was out of tempo. The official approach per regulation and the Code of Practice is that the time should be ran-domised. Thus if the tray comes back after ten or twenty seconds there is still no idea what is going on and most "Screen Huddles" are eliminated. In high-level competitive or slam auctions it would be normal to keep the tray back for longer, say until twenty to forty seconds have elapsed.This will not be considered a tempo break either. So the decision at Lille might easi-ly have been different if this policy had been official then. However the Dutch player would not have felt con-strained by a tray returning slowly from the other side. Some people bang their calls down on the tray so they are audible the other side of the screen: this is very unfortunate, doing away with much of the good that this approach embodies. So, when you are playing, please place your calls quietly on the tray, randomising the time the tray takes to return, and remembering that any time around fifteen seconds means nothing, and longer if it is a complex auction. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 11 19:39:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8B9Y6F10441 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 19:34:06 +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 e8B9Y0t10437 for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 19:34:00 +1000 (EST) Received: by esebh02nok with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) id ; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 12:30:34 +0300 Message-ID: From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Bad lead but how bad? Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 12:26:30 +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 K2 Q6 AQJ652 K74 AQ8753 J6 832 1074 10 93 J52 A109863 1094 AKJ95 K874 Q Match points, dealer South, EW vul. W N E S --- --- --- 1H 1S x* 2C 2D p 4NT p 5S** p 6D p p p x = negative, 2D would have been NF, 3D would have shown D and the heart fit 5S = two key cards (D set as trumps) + side king West leads the SA. Then he asks about the meaning of the 5S bid and gets the answer: "2 aces plus the side king". He continues spades and declarer is home. West calls the TD. Additional facts: 1) RCKB is much more popular around in Poland than 4 ace Blackwood 2) NS played RKCB. 3) West is an international level TD The first question is: do you think that West did everything to protect himself? The second one concerns the spade continuation. This is clearly an error (if South indeed does have the CA than he can't have 4 spades; he is 5+-4+ in reds) but how big an error is this? Do you think it breaks the link between an infraction and the damage? Do you think that the class of West player matters here? Just what is your ruling on this one? Thanks in advance for your replies 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 Sep 11 22:04:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8BC3GX10539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 22:03:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stormy.ibl.bm (stormy.ibl.bm [199.172.192.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8BC39t10535; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 22:03:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from [199.172.230.208] by stormy.ibl.bm (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-65377U14500L13000S0V35) with SMTP id bm; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 08:27:57 -0300 Date: 11 Sep 2000 08:27:03 -0700 Message-ID: <-1243461677jrhind@ibl.bm> From: Jack Rhind Subject: Re: [BLML] Screen saver To: , , X-Mailer: QuickMail Pro 2.0.4 (Mac) X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: Jack Rhind Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-Ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id e8BC3Ct10536 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I see no violation of any laws in your example. In fact, West has followed the suggested procedure with screens when a screen-mate makes a fast bid(pass). West should select their bid(pass) and place it on the table (not the tray) in front of them. After the hesitation, the bid(pass) is then placed on the tray and the tray can be passsed through the screen. As to your second question, I don't see that West can ever be unethical for bidding(passing) in tempo. On Sunday, September 10, 2000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > >Reference: January 1998 Bridge World, page 16 > >In a match of the 1997 Bermuda Bowl round robin, West held: > >A83 >QJ1097 >AJ2 >94 > >The bidding commenced: > >W N E S >1H 2C 3H 4H >P 4NT P > >Now South, West's screenmate, bid 5C quickly. West *rectified the count* by >passing 5C intentionally slowly. North now bid 6C, which West doubled for one >off. > >Did West violate L73D2, L72A6 and L72B1? Or is *screen saving* entirely ethical >and proper, since the screen is supposed to conceal fast calls as well as >huddles? > >What if West held a different hand, such as xxx AKQJx Jxx Jx, which had minimal >defence against 6C? Is it now ethical for West to pass in tempo after South's >quick 5C? > >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 Mon Sep 11 22:06:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8BC6dH10551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 22:06:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8BC6Wt10547 for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 22:06:33 +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 e8BC6R092378 for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 08:06:27 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000911074401.00a95c50@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, 11 Sep 2000 08:07:22 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director In-Reply-To: <00090711233400.03596@psa836> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:05 AM 9/7/00, David wrote: >Matchpoints, neither vulnerable, ACBL sectional pairs > > K > K98 > AT9843 > J42 >QJ8 A752 >7543 AQT >KJ76 Q52 >75 KQ9 > T9643 > J62 > - > AT863 > >W N E S > 1N p >p 2C(1) p 2D(2) >x p p xx >p p p > >(1) Intended as Cappelletti, not alerted >(2) Also not alerted > >After the SQ lead, North remembers that Cappelletti is alertable, and >informs the opponents. West calls the director (actually, this is >North's responsibility). > >The director comes to the table with a record of the hand. While she >is studying the auction, she accidentally shows the hand record to the >players. > >Any further play on this hand is not bridge, but how do you assign >scores? L12C1 applies only "when... a result cannot be obtained", and that isn't the case here; we know what the contract is (2DXX), and can easily determine the "likely" or "at all probable" results. OTOH, L12C2 applies only when "award[ing] an... adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained", and no result has been "actually obtained". L82C says "Director... shall award an adjusted score, considering both sides as non-offending", but that only points us to L12C, not to either L12C1 or L12C2 in particular. Two factors influence me towards wanting to use L12C2 in this case. From the perspective of the law, I believe that the spirit and intention of L12C suggests giving precedence to L12C2 when possible, reserving L12C1 for those cases where we really cannot come to a reasonable L12C2 determination. From the perspective of equity, I don't like awarding A+/A+ when it's clear that E-W, who clearly did nothing wrong, was about to get a (near, at least) top, and N-S, who caused the problem, was about to get a bottom, before the TD make her error. However, since it was the TD's error that brought L12C into play, I will apply L12C2 treating both sides as non-offending. I'll leave it to the more analytically inclined to analyze the possibilities in detail (David's question wasn't what score to assign, but rather how to go about assigning it), but off the top of my head it looks like about -600/+600 N-S/E-W. 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 Sep 11 22:09:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8BC9in10564 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 22:09:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8BC9ct10560 for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 22:09:39 +1000 (EST) Received: by esebh01nok with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) id ; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 15:07:10 +0300 Message-ID: From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Screen saver Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:58:41 +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 "Screen Huddles" by David Stevenson from Bulletin#9 In the past, there has been a considerable problem with unauthorised information caused by breaks in tempo, even behind screens. There was an important decision rendered in Lille in 1998 (Appeal 22, Nether-lands v USA: full details available at http://home.world-com. ch/~fsb/98wbc_appeals.html) where a North American player delayed the passing of the tray beyond the normal tempo of a normal auction. His intention was merely to normalise the tempo to that of the ac-tual auction which was slow throughout, but his Dutch opponent on the other side of the screen felt there had been a tempo break and acted ethically by following Law 73C, and missed a slam. The Appeals Committee granted the slam. The point was that the method of normalising tempo was being practised in North America at that time but not elsewhere. Now it has been adopted for WBF tour-naments. In a simple auction there is considered no tempo break when the tray returns within fifteen sec-onds. So it is desirable to adjust the tempo so that it does take fifteen seconds. If there are two quick calls, then it helps to wait some time before pushing the tray.Thus the players the other side of the screen receiving the tray after fifteen seconds do not know whether either of the players had a problem, or which of them, or whether the tray was just delayed. Note that this helps even when only one side is bid-ding, the other passing throughout: if the tray returns every time after fifteen seconds, then the other side of the screen still cannot distinguish between a tempo break, and a deliberate delay of the tray. Players should get in the habit of not returning the tray until fifteen sec-onds have elapsed. Fifteen seconds exactly? No, that would be difficult, and then it would still be possible to tell when a return was out of tempo. The official approach per regulation and the Code of Practice is that the time should be ran-domised. Thus if the tray comes back after ten or twenty seconds there is still no idea what is going on and most "Screen Huddles" are eliminated. In high-level competitive or slam auctions it would be normal to keep the tray back for longer, say until twenty to forty seconds have elapsed.This will not be considered a tempo break either. So the decision at Lille might easi-ly have been different if this policy had been official then. However the Dutch player would not have felt con-strained by a tray returning slowly from the other side. Some people bang their calls down on the tray so they are audible the other side of the screen: this is very unfortunate, doing away with much of the good that this approach embodies. So, when you are playing, please place your calls quietly on the tray, randomising the time the tray takes to return, and remembering that any time around fifteen seconds means nothing, and longer if it is a complex auction. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 11 22:25:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8BCOvO10597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 22:24:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8BCOlt10593 for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 22:24:48 +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 OAA05964; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:23:11 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id OAA02982; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:24:18 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000911143417.00906c80@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:34:17 +0200 To: David J Grabiner , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director In-Reply-To: <00090711233400.03596@psa836> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:05 7/09/00 +0000, David J Grabiner wrote: > >After the SQ lead, North remembers that Cappelletti is alertable, and >informs the opponents. West calls the director (actually, this is >North's responsibility). > >The director comes to the table with a record of the hand. While she >is studying the auction, she accidentally shows the hand record to the >players. >Any further play on this hand is not bridge, but how do you assign >scores? AG : the offending side is the director. Average plus to both sides is the only way to get out of the mess. A quartet of drinks might help, too. A PP to the non-alerter is still possible, and reasonable. 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 Mon Sep 11 22:34:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8BCYAj10610 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 22:34:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8BCXxt10606 for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 22:34:00 +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 OAA09300; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:32:27 +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 OAA08661; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:33:34 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000911144333.00885220@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:43:33 +0200 To: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] What does the fast pass over skip bid demonstrably suggests? 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 11:57 8/09/00 +0300, Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com wrote: > I have never ever seen a ruling canceling >pass and giving and AssAS based on the assumption >that South should ethically re-open in this >position. Can anybody show me an appeal from >a top level tournament involving this problem? AG : I can help you, though it is not top-level : N xxx / xxx / xxx / Jxxx E KQxxx / A / Jxxxx / xx S --- / KQJx / AKQxx / Qxxx W AJxxx / xxxxx / - / AKx (E/W hands are not guaranteed, bt the idea is there) E S W N 2S (1) X 4S p (2) p p (1) weak, 5+ cards (2) very quick The contract was changed to 5C X -3 but, since it was a teams event, the difference between that score and 4S+2, as scored at the other table, and as scored when the director let play the contract, was not quite high. 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 Sep 11 22:51:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8BCpBL10650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 22:51:11 +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 e8BCp4t10646 for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 22:51:05 +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 OAA09380; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:51:45 +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 OAA19216; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:50:39 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000911150038.00904580@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 15:00:38 +0200 To: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad lead but how bad? 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 12:26 11/09/00 +0300, Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com wrote: > > > K2 > Q6 > AQJ652 > K74 > >AQ8753 J6 >832 1074 >10 93 >J52 A109863 > > 1094 > AKJ95 > K874 > Q > >Match points, dealer South, EW vul. > >W N E S >--- --- --- 1H >1S x* 2C 2D >p 4NT p 5S** >p 6D p p >p > > West leads the SA. Then he asks about the meaning >of the 5S bid and gets the answer: "2 aces plus >the side king". He continues spades and declarer >is home. West calls the TD. > The first question is: do you think that West did >everything to protect himself? AG : ths problem is, I would have understood the explanation (I did, at first reading) as 'two aces + one useful king' (either H or D), a popular treatment here. Which means I would have every right to believe they didn't play 5-ace, since they had other ways to show the DK ! So, I don't think West should ask more. I've already penalized a player (a good one) for having answered 'two Aces'. I fully expect 5-acers to answer 'two out of five'. The second one concerns >the spade continuation. This is clearly an error (if South >indeed does have the CA than he can't have 4 spades; >he is 5+-4+ in reds) but how big an error is this? >Do you think it breaks the link between an infraction >and the damage? Do you think that the class of West player >matters here? AG : not really. At a sound, but not top-classe, level, I wouldn't dare say West made an obvious error. Even at top level, If South is to be believed, the DK scores a trick for the defense, so the return is immaterial. Thus, it is no 'clear error'. Final note : I once asked to a lady, in a BW situation, 'whether the spade King is an Ace'. I'll never forget her 'who's that mad guy?' look. 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 Mon Sep 11 22:51:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8BCppu10662 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 22:51:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8BCpft10658 for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 22:51:45 +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 e8BCpT094517 for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 08:51:29 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000911080752.00a97260@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, 11 Sep 2000 08:52:25 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL policy on agreements after opponents' irregularity In-Reply-To: <200009072305.TAA23652@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 07:05 PM 9/7/00, Steve wrote: > > From: Eric Landau > > I must be free to do so, notwithstanding that in doing so > > I am ascribing a different meaning to the auction 1S-1H/2H-X than I would > > to 1S-2H-X. > >If your double in either auction is conventional, I don't see why an SO >couldn't require you to give the doubles in both auctions the same meaning >under L40D. (At the very least, they can forbid you to use any conventions in >the subsequent auction.) > >If you play neither double as conventional, then I think you are correct that >meanings can be different. (I'm not sure just how the meanings could differ >if neither double is conventional, but perhaps overall strength or heart >holding >promised could be different.) When you agree as a partnership to use a particular convention in some particular situation, you are in effect also agreeing that you will use that convention in analogous situations where it is appropriate to do so. Logic, common sense and experience guide you to making judgments, as necessary, as to in which situations the agreement applies and in which situations it does not. In the latter case, absent further conventional agreements, you will assume that, when the convention does not apply, you will revert to bidding naturally. Here you have agreed that 1S-2H-X is negative, but logic, common sense and experience tell you (perhaps not so obviously correctly, but that's beside the point) that in the given situation, 1S-1H/2H-X, your convention does not apply, and so partner's double should be natural (i.e. penalty). I believe you are legally entitled to back your judgment; it's not at all clear that the SO may tell you that because you play a particular convention in a particular situation, it must apply in some other given situation even when you decide that simply bridge logic dictates otherwise. I would argue that under the laws, SO regulation either can or cannot require you to use a particular convention in a particular situation. It would be splitting a very fine hair to argue that they may require you to use convention X in situation Y if you already have agreed to use convention X in situation Z, but not otherwise. IOW, I don't see how we can read L40D as allowing the ACBL to require that you must play 1S-1H/2H-X as negative if you play 1S-2H-X as negative without reading it as allowing them to require that you must play 1S-1H/2H-X as negative, period. Or that you must play 1S-2H-X as negative. So the bottom line issue is whether or not the authority to "regulate the use of bidding or play conventions" granted to SOs by L40D incorporates the authority to *require* the use of specified conventions. A good question. Does it? In my naive youth, I'd have said "of course not", on the grounds that requiring the use of a convention is equivalent to banning the use of a natural bid, which SOs may not do. But I would have said the same of the ACBL's prohibition against the use of any conventions whatsoever after a natural 9-12 HCP 1NT opening, and the WBF has clearly found the latter legal, so I must view the former as at least an open question. > > ...agreements about actions over an opponent's irregularity, which are > prima > > facie illegal in ACBL competition > >Not since 1998, apparently. Yes, I've learned from reading BLML that the ACBL's star chamber apparently made this decision in secret a couple of years ago (choosing to share it, apparently, only with owners of ACBLScore and Mr. Blaiss's personal correspondents). One wonders when they will see fit to announce this decision to their membership at large, or how they expect people to act in accordance with it in the real world until they do. 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 Sep 11 23:37:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8BDaVU10743 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 23:36:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8BDaPt10736 for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 23:36:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13YTkr-000HLS-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:36:18 +0100 Message-ID: <9XhBl6AEZMv5EwD9@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 12:47:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] I shall tell you my conclusions when I have considered 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 Linda Trent wrote: >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 :-) Oh, he did. He managed to get the team into bottom place before someone dragged them back to a reasonable position. -- 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 Mon Sep 11 23:37:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8BDaiN10753 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 23:36:44 +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 e8BDaSt10740 for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 23:36:29 +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 13YTkq-000HLQ-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:36:17 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 12:44:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] I shall tell you my conclusions when I have considered ...... References: <2hdjoVAuZap5EwQm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <39A65D62.849733D7@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <39A65D62.849733D7@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> I expect to have a bit of spare time in Maastricht, especially since > >That means I'll do all the Appeals work then ? So what happened to all the appeals you were writing up? All mine got published! More to the point, I expect to see my name as *the* success of Maastricht: probably the only player in this year's World Championship with a 100% record: played two, won two. -- 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 Mon Sep 11 23:37:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8BDaid10754 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 23:36:44 +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 e8BDaSt10741 for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 23:36:29 +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 13YTkt-000HLR-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:36:18 +0100 Message-ID: <437AN8AudMv5EwBd@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 12:52:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] The untold story 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 e8BDaYt10745 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >   >   >     Recently I described a hand from a minor English national event > where there was a sequence such as Having seen the presentation of this and other articles from my Hotmail account, I am very pleased that I have decent software at home. Outlook Express is set up with a default of sending messages as HTML: please find yours and turn it off! I was using several different computers and some have slipped through the web. I also have no idea how to make sure my Hotmail messages thread correctly. -- 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 Mon Sep 11 23:37:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8BDaiE10755 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 23:36:44 +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 e8BDaUt10742 for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 23:36:31 +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 13YTkp-000HLP-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:36:13 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 12:42:36 +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> <00be01c007f4$03181b20$72d536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <3.0.6.32.20000825120850.008e1910@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000825120850.008e1910@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 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 ? Only on BLML. In real life, Director's main aim is to keep tournaments running. Everything else is secondary. -- 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 Mon Sep 11 23:43:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8BDhc010790 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 23:43:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8BDhVt10786 for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 23:43:32 +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 e8BDhP827221 for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 09:43:26 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000911093022.00a99eb0@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, 11 Sep 2000 09:44:22 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Alas, Poor Yorick, I Knew Him Well... In-Reply-To: <200009081823.OAA20812@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000908082554.00a96ed0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20000908082554.00a96ed0@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Continuing the off-topic discussion (if others would prefer, we can take it private)... At 02:23 PM 9/8/00, blml wrote: >As Michael goes farther and farther off-topic... :-) > >On 8 September 2000 at 8:28, Eric Landau wrote: > >At 02:13 PM 9/7/00, Thomas wrote: > > > >>I have some example hands. > >>Please detail with which preempt you would > >>open them 3rd seat at white (playing weak-twos): > >>- KQJTx,x,x,QJ9xxx > >>- Axxxxxx,KJxx,void,xx > >>- KQTxxx,QJTxx,x,x > >>- xxxxxxx,KQJx,x,x > >>- KJTxxx,KJTxxx,void,x > > > >I doubt that Thomas is really interested in what EHAA players would do with > >these hands, but I can't resist getting in a plug for my favorite system. > > > >2C on the first, 2S on the other four. > >Eric, it is with my heart in my throat that I beg to differ. I would >think you would be bidding 2S on the first four, 2H on the fifth one. I rate both the first and fifth hands as worth two bids, so I bid 2C on the first, hoping to back in with 2S on the next round, and 2S on the fifth, hoping to back in with 3H. This also covers me if partner is the one who bids one of my short suits, suggesting length with not enough in high cards to have opened at the 2-level. (I just love it when I get an average result after the auction goes 2S-P-P-3C-3H-P-4H -- around here, they *always* balance -- making 5, and the opponents go away muttering darkly to themselves.) >Of course, remembering the context, while everyone else in the room is >responding to p-p, you are responding to 2D-p (partner has T532 Q J8654 >A94, according to my wayback machine). Well, on 2D-P-, I like 2S on the first hand (at least at matchpoints or BAM), but would still bid 2S on the fifth hand to have 3H available over partner's likely 3C or 3D. >This whole thing would have been avoided had N-S been playing EHAA. >After all, p-p-p-1NT; 2D is kind of an unusual call (opener's >pass limits her hand to 5 points with a 5+card suit, or 9(8 in >Maastricht) if balanced, or 12 if 4441). Specifically 4=4=4=1, perhaps? It's never come up, but yes, if it did, I would expect 4=4=4=1. Nice to see someone else thinking like an EHAA player! >P.S. I thoroughly enjoyed being able to explain to the director "but partner >couldn't have that hand (5-4 in the majors, IIRC). He would have opened >2H." "even with 4=5=2=2 and a bare response?" "yep. See? It's right >here on our card". Absolutely. Around here, the TDs are familiar enough with EHAA that it wouldn't even be necessary! 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 Sep 11 23:56:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8BDuDg10803 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 23:56:13 +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 e8BDu5t10799 for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 23:56:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-134.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.134]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA23037 for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 15:55:49 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39BCDE25.50C04F34@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 15:29:09 +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: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal 20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk (actual case unimportant - EW used a convention that was not on their CC) The Committee Agreed that the North-South pair were put at a serious disadvantage in these circumstances. Judged that the Directors had ruled correctly upon the facts but that it was not certain that, with correct information, the slam would be bid 100% of the time. The equity existing immediately prior to the infraction would allow for some chances that the slam might not be bid. The Committee's decision: Score adjusted to: both sides receive: 75% of Six no-trumps, made, NS +1440 25% of Three no-trumps, +3, NS + 690 Penalty Having established their view of the equity, the Committee took account of the principle adopted prior to the commencement of the Tournament that, when appropriate, a restoration of equity is accompanied by a penalty on an offending side for a violation of law or regulation. Applying this principle the Committee penalized East-West for their breach of the Conditions of Contest, the penalty being a reduction of 3 imps in their score. Deposit: Returned Comments by the Code of Practice Group: Whilst the WBF Code of Practice Group is not of a mind to insist that any one particular method of applying Law 12C3 is 'correct', this is an example of a situation in which a weighted score is considered to be desirable in expressing the equity between the two sides in the instant before the infraction occurred. It demonstrates the manner in which a weighted score may be awarded to implement that equity. (The Committee did not translate its percentage decisions into imps; this was done by the Director): 75% of +13 = + 9.75 25% of + 1 = + 0.25 Penalty + 3.00 Outcome + 13.00 These methods can be recommended. (the Last is Grattan's comment on the calculation) (this is HDW talking) However ! This is a knock-out match !! I would hope to see that AC decisions are independent of the method of scoring. Of course a penalty shall be expressed either as 10% or 3 IMPs, but we all know these to be equivalent. But this is a different penalty indeed. If this had been during the first week of the Olympiad, the result would have been. To the team of NS (NOs) +10 IMPs To the team of EW (Os) -13 IMPs Resulting in something like 15-14 VP. That is the true meaning of equity + penalty. But since this is a knock out stage, I believe something akin to L86B should be applied, and the result on the board (for both sides) should be +/1 11.5 IMPs. In effect, a double-normal penalty has been imposed here. Does Grattan agree with this analysis ? Should it not be put to the Lausanne group ? If I might be so bold as to offer a suggestion. Maybe the CoC should define a "standard penalty" and clearly state what the standard penalty amounts to in different types of tournament. For example the CoC could say that a standard penalty is 0.75VP in round-robin play, and -1.5 / +1.5 IMP in the knock-out stage. Of course the TD's and AC's are empowered to issue double standard penalties or even more. -- 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 Sep 12 00:48:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8BElDP10882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:47:13 +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-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 e8BEl3t10866 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:47:03 +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 13YUrH-00012G-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:46:55 +0000 Message-ID: <5lngJ$BfMOv5EwAK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:50:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A References: <006701c01357$d5f59d60$99033dd4@default> In-Reply-To: <006701c01357$d5f59d60$99033dd4@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: >No, I do not agree; I want just "without thought". >In the Netherlands we learnt that the interpretation is: no change after >thinking. Time is expedient for thinking but in the case of the waitress the >thinking has nothing to do with bridge! The director can decide when looking >at the hand: is 3S likely or 3NT. Absolutely not. You must never have a procedure which involved looking at the hand, and requiring a TD to make a judgement ruling instantly, apart from giving UI to the other members. No competent TD *ever* looks at a player's hand before the end of the hand for the purpose of giving such a ruling. -- 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 Sep 12 00:48:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8BElcU10918 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:47:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8BElAt10878 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:47:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13YUrL-000MoM-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:47:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 15:13:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] What does the fast pass over skip bid demonstrably sug gests? 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: > I doubt this is the main reason. Top level tournaments are played >with screens and the STOP card is not used. Many top-level tournaments are played without screens. -- 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 Sep 12 00:48:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8BEla410916 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:47:36 +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 e8BEl8t10875 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:47:09 +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 13YUrH-000MoM-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:46:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 15:00:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] did insufficient to protect his own back ? 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 R wrote: > >In effect, the Maastricht committee has ruled: > >*If you do not bother to look at the opponents' system card, you should be >fined 3 imps.* I *really* dislike pejorative re-wording of this sort. Why not let the original wording stand? Because your re-wording gives a totally different opinion. A *much* fairer comment on the decision would be 'In effect, the Maastricht committee has decided:' '*If you do not bother to look at the opponents' system card, AND you claim to be damaged by a failure to alert, AND it is in a normal auction, AND ...., AND ...., you should be fined 3 imps.*' Nothing in the original decision suggests you should be fined 3 imps every time you do not look at the opponents' system card, as your wording suggests. -- 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 Sep 12 00:48:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8BElIK10894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:47:18 +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-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 e8BEl4t10867 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:47:04 +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 13YUrH-000JyB-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:46:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 15:07:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director References: <00090711233400.03596@psa836> <4.3.2.7.1.20000911074401.00a95c50@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20000911074401.00a95c50@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 07:05 AM 9/7/00, David wrote: > >>Matchpoints, neither vulnerable, ACBL sectional pairs >> >> K >> K98 >> AT9843 >> J42 >>QJ8 A752 >>7543 AQT >>KJ76 Q52 >>75 KQ9 >> T9643 >> J62 >> - >> AT863 >> >>W N E S >> 1N p >>p 2C(1) p 2D(2) >>x p p xx >>p p p >> >>(1) Intended as Cappelletti, not alerted >>(2) Also not alerted >> >>After the SQ lead, North remembers that Cappelletti is alertable, and >>informs the opponents. West calls the director (actually, this is >>North's responsibility). >> >>The director comes to the table with a record of the hand. While she >>is studying the auction, she accidentally shows the hand record to the >>players. >> >>Any further play on this hand is not bridge, but how do you assign >>scores? > >L12C1 applies only "when... a result cannot be obtained", and that isn't >the case here; we know what the contract is (2DXX), and can easily >determine the "likely" or "at all probable" results. No, that is assigning. No result was or could be obtained, so L12C2 does not come into play. You have assigned a score to get a score to allow you to assign. Ok in Alice in wonderland, but not otherwise. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 12 00:48:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8BEljt10921 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:47:45 +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-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 e8BEl8t10876 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:47:09 +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 13YUrH-000MoN-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:46:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 15:05:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director References: <200009102059.QAA26291@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200009102059.QAA26291@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 J Grabiner >> Hwoever, is there any basis for restoring equity? E-W were headed for >> a top when the director was called; > >Wasn't it Grattan who pointed out that L12C1 says _at least_ 60% for an >artificial avg+? There seems to be a strong case for 100% this time. Not only did he not get much support for this notion here on BLML, but the Laws Commission ruled in Maastricht that you may not give more than 60% unless the players' session average is higher. >Also, why should the NS score be 60%? Yes, TD error has prevented them >from completing the board, but they were already guilty of an >infraction. Surely "each side non-offending" means _from the moment of >the TD error_, not from the beginning of the board. I'm not sure what >score to give, but 40% looks reasonable. They might have got 100% despite the infraction, and this has been taken away from them. They deserve A+. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 12 00:48:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8BElkN10922 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:47:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8BElEt10889 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:47:15 +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 13YUrT-000JyB-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:47:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 15:24:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] voided claim 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: <014201c019f4$0fd05500$34e436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> >Peter Gill wrote: >> Admittedly I couldn't open the English Laws of Rubber Bridge >> on DWS's website, so my quotes come from the American version of >There is no "English" edition that I know of - just the international >one agreed by ACBL (Western Hemisphere and Philippines), EBL (Europe >excluding Spain/Portugal), Portland Club (everywhere else). The >Portland club includes representatives of all 4 British bodies. The Portland club one is referred to as the "English" edition. I think you will find there is no EBL version of the rubber Laws, unlike the Duplicate Laws. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 12 00:48:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8BElpr10924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:47:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8BElHt10896 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:47:19 +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 13YUrV-000Mp1-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:47:14 +0000 Message-ID: <9FnhB7BdJOv5EwiK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:47:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Instuif Appeal 3 References: <016e01c00eab$cd061be0$67da36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <016e01c00eab$cd061be0$67da36cb@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: >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. L25A is so well understood that LOLs regularly change calls without calling the TD. if the TD were called every time we should probably need at least five times as many TDs. Of course, these rules apply just as much to written bidding. While I was in Australia I ran into a number of cases of inadvertent wrongly- written calls: it seems that the problem in Australia is ignorance of the existence of L25A. -- 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 Sep 12 00:48:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8BEm5t10928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:48:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8BElNt10907 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:47:25 +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 13YUrc-000MoM-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:47:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 15:26:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Screen saver References: <-1243461677jrhind@ibl.bm> In-Reply-To: <-1243461677jrhind@ibl.bm> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jack Rhind wrote: >I see no violation of any laws in your example. In fact, West has followed the >suggested procedure with screens when a screen-mate makes a fast bid(pass). I am not convinced that you will find any suggestion of this being the recommended procedure in 1997. It certainly was not at Lille in 1998 - see the Moss example - it was an ACBL procedure. _Now_ it has been accepted by the WBF. > West >should select their bid(pass) and place it on the table (not the tray) in front >of them. After the hesitation, the bid(pass) is then placed on the tray and the >tray can be passsed through the screen. -- 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 Sep 12 00:48:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8BElwC10926 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:47:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8BElOt10908 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:47:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13YUrd-000MoN-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:47:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 15:30:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad lead but how bad? 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: > > > K2 > Q6 > AQJ652 > K74 > >AQ8753 J6 >832 1074 >10 93 >J52 A109863 > > 1094 > AKJ95 > K874 > Q > >Match points, dealer South, EW vul. > >W N E S >--- --- --- 1H >1S x* 2C 2D >p 4NT p 5S** >p 6D p p >p > >x = negative, 2D would have been NF, 3D would > have shown D and the heart fit >5S = two key cards (D set as trumps) + side king > > West leads the SA. Then he asks about the meaning >of the 5S bid and gets the answer: "2 aces plus >the side king". He continues spades and declarer >is home. West calls the TD. > Additional facts: > > 1) RCKB is much more popular around in Poland than > 4 ace Blackwood > 2) NS played RKCB. > 3) West is an international level TD > > The first question is: do you think that West did >everything to protect himself? The second one concerns >the spade continuation. This is clearly an error (if South >indeed does have the CA than he can't have 4 spades; >he is 5+-4+ in reds) but how big an error is this? I am a simple soul. I trust what opponents say but do not make deductions for them. *You* may know that declarer is not 4=5=3=1 but I would have thought he could be. A club switch cannot beat it so why not play another spade? >Do you think it breaks the link between an infraction >and the damage? Do you think that the class of West player >matters here? Just what is your ruling on this one? He was damaged and should get redress. -- 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 Sep 12 02:10:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8BG9j111077 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 02:09:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from praseodumium.btinternet.com (praseodumium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.82]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8BG9ct11073 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 02:09:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.123.33.185] (helo=D457300) by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13YW9E-0005xP-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 17:09:33 +0100 Message-ID: <003b01c01c0a$92af8140$b9217bd5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: [BLML] Rostand it ain't Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 17:08:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Back from Maastricht, but uns*bscr*b*d to the list before I went, so don't know what has or has not been written on the Great Hallberg Claim. But here is something that I was challenged to write by the English npc after the event - I thought it might amuse some of you also. [Author's note: some dramatic licence has been taken with the facts of this incident. The Belgian players, as well as being worthy - almost too worthy! - opponents, were exemplary sportsmen who took the incident referred to here and the ruling in the best possible spirit.] Ballade of Unwarranted Presumption Playing against a Belgian side, I reached a dodgy contract, where Although to beat me long they tried, They hadn’t any cards to spare. Instead of merely sitting there And waiting for all Hell to freeze, I rose politely in my chair And claimed it on a double squeeze. Directors came from far and wide, Out of some dark infernal lair. "He can’t do that!" the Belgians cried, "It’s not allowed! It isn’t fair!" Bill Schoder fixed me with a glare. "What were you doing, if you please?" "It’s quite all right – don’t lose your hair – I claimed it on a double squeeze." They called Committees to decide If I was mad, or took no care. "And are you normal?" I replied, "I try to be, when I declare." "Are you inferior?" "What! You dare To ask me questions such as these? The end position wasn’t rare – I claimed it on a double squeeze." Envoi Prince, all the Laws are pure hot air, And made for sheep by chimpanzees. But that is none of my affair - I claimed it on a double squeeze. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 12 02:12:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8BGC1N11095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 02:12:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8BGBst11091 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 02:11:55 +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 SAA02106; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 18:12:25 +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 SAA10987; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 18:11:19 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000911182119.00850940@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 18:21:19 +0200 To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] did insufficient to protect his own back ? 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 At 15:00 11/09/00 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >>In effect, the Maastricht committee has ruled: > >'*If you do not bother to look at the opponents' system card, AND you >claim to be damaged by a failure to alert, AND it is in a normal >auction, AND ...., AND ...., you should be fined 3 imps.*' AG : is this *so* complicated ? I'd like to see a new item in law 74B, which would read something like 'doing anything that complicates the organisation and hinders fluent progress of the competition'. This would include I.A. : - trying to make one's own rulings (now only the right to penalize is forfeited, but what if there was no such right : you must be able to fine them) - causing a need for arbitral or ACal decision from one's carelseeness (as could be the case here, or when playing with 12 cards, which creates the need for a complex revoke enquiry according to law 14B3) - 74B4 (although I don't like it - some players are afraid of claiming and I can understand this) 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 Sep 12 03:19:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8BHI7D11177 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 03:18:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8BHHqt11173 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 03:18:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive46a.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.16.202]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA11941 for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 13:17:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <012001c01c14$a7001ce0$ca10f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: Subject: Re: [BLML] The untold story Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 13:20:46 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk To do this in Outlook Express: Go to Tools/Options/Send click plain text boxes. Takes about 5-10 seconds. Makes readable for everyone...some email readers show html as a blank screen. Craig >David Stevenson wrote: >> Recently I described a hand from a minor English national event >> where there was a sequence such as > Having seen the presentation of this and other articles from my >Hotmail account, I am very pleased that I have decent software at home. > Outlook Express is set up with a default of sending messages as HTML: >please find yours and turn it off! I was using several different >computers and some have slipped through the web. > > I also have no idea how to make sure my Hotmail messages thread >correctly. Use decent software. :-)) Good to have you back...now maybe you can post some new photos of your much neglected cats. :-) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 12 03:22:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8BHMLR11194 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 03:22:21 +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 e8BHMEt11190 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 03:22:15 +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 KAA09502; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 10:22:08 -0700 Message-Id: <200009111722.KAA09502@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Rostand it ain't In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 11 Sep 2000 17:08:47 PDT." <003b01c01c0a$92af8140$b9217bd5@D457300> Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 10:22:09 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > Back from Maastricht, but uns*bscr*b*d to the list before I went, so > don't know what has or has not been written on the Great Hallberg > Claim. But here is something that I was challenged to write by the > English npc after the event - I thought it might amuse some of you > also. Well done, David! My only regret is that your npc didn't also challenge you to write a melody to which to set the lyrics. My mind instinctively wants to conjure up some melody to sing this to, but unfortunately everything it comes up with seems to lead to "And now he is the ruler of the Queen's na-vee . . ." which doesn't fit rhythmically, as well as in other ways. So I'm afraid whoever sets this to music will need to be a lot more culturally literate than I am. -- 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 Sep 12 03:44:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8BHiGc11228 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 03:44:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8BHi9t11224 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 03:44:10 +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 e8BHi4011702 for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 13:44:04 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000911133005.00b1fc20@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, 11 Sep 2000 13:45:00 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad lead but how bad? 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 05:26 AM 9/11/00, Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski wrote: > K2 > Q6 > AQJ652 > K74 > >AQ8753 J6 >832 1074 >10 93 >J52 A109863 > > 1094 > AKJ95 > K874 > Q > >Match points, dealer South, EW vul. > >W N E S >--- --- --- 1H >1S x* 2C 2D >p 4NT p 5S** >p 6D p p >p > >x = negative, 2D would have been NF, 3D would > have shown D and the heart fit >5S = two key cards (D set as trumps) + side king > > West leads the SA. Then he asks about the meaning >of the 5S bid and gets the answer: "2 aces plus >the side king". He continues spades and declarer >is home. West calls the TD. > Additional facts: > > 1) RCKB is much more popular around in Poland than > 4 ace Blackwood > 2) NS played RKCB. > 3) West is an international level TD None of that magically turns the DK into an ace. A particularly sharp West might realize that there might be a problem from North's reply, "two aces plus *the side* king", which does suggest that there is a presumptive trump suit involved, and doesn't mention the trump king, which in combination suggest that North might have been using the word "ace" loosely enough to include the trump king, but that goes well beyond whatever responsibility West might have had to "protect himself". Once North says "two aces" West is entitled to presume that South should, by agreement, hold two aces. > The first question is: do you think that West did >everything to protect himself? No, but he certainly did as much as he needed to, and is not to be in any way faulted for failing to do more. Protecting yourself doesn't require asking "are you sure your answer is true?" after every response to an inquiry! >The second one concerns >the spade continuation. This is clearly an error (if South >indeed does have the CA than he can't have 4 spades; >he is 5+-4+ in reds) but how big an error is this? We can call it a "small" error or a "big" one, but whichever it is, it doesn't rise to the level of "egregious", which means far more than just "big" or "obvious". >Do you think it breaks the link between an infraction >and the damage? No. >Do you think that the class of West player >matters here? No. >Just what is your ruling on this one? West was given MI; North stated his agreement as "two aces" when it was no such thing. Had he been given correct information, he might well have (indeed, probably would have) shifted to a club. His failure to do so even with the MI might be stupid, but is far from "wild, irrational or gambling". Down 1. 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 Sep 12 06:23:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8BKM5H11309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 06:22:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8BKLwt11305 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 06:21:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (t1o993p51.telia.com [213.64.26.51]) by d1o993.telia.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA17563; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 22:21:50 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <002e01c01c3e$ea07be60$331a40d5@oemcomputer> From: "Peter Swensson" To: , Subject: SV: [BLML] Bad lead but how bad? Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 22:22:58 -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 e8BKM2t11306 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk You must be kidding. OK, it looks like a simple MI, but if RKCB (=5E) is totally dominating as in Sweden and in Poland we have to at least thinking of the reverse of the medal. If West could be for instance 80% (or more) sure that opps are playing 5E; why should he chose to play agains the odds and lean back and go for juridical winwin situation. We have to stop the influence of legal hair-splitting in this game. I'd have a tough decision in this situation. MI or a West how refuse to protect himself with secret motive. /Peter -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com Till: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Datum: den 11 september 2000 10:36 Ämne: [BLML] Bad lead but how bad? > > > K2 > Q6 > AQJ652 > K74 > >AQ8753 J6 >832 1074 >10 93 >J52 A109863 > > 1094 > AKJ95 > K874 > Q > >Match points, dealer South, EW vul. > >W N E S >--- --- --- 1H >1S x* 2C 2D >p 4NT p 5S** >p 6D p p >p > >x = negative, 2D would have been NF, 3D would > have shown D and the heart fit >5S = two key cards (D set as trumps) + side king > > West leads the SA. Then he asks about the meaning >of the 5S bid and gets the answer: "2 aces plus >the side king". He continues spades and declarer >is home. West calls the TD. > Additional facts: > > 1) RCKB is much more popular around in Poland than > 4 ace Blackwood > 2) NS played RKCB. > 3) West is an international level TD > > The first question is: do you think that West did >everything to protect himself? The second one concerns >the spade continuation. This is clearly an error (if South >indeed does have the CA than he can't have 4 spades; >he is 5+-4+ in reds) but how big an error is this? >Do you think it breaks the link between an infraction >and the damage? Do you think that the class of West player >matters here? Just what is your ruling on this one? > Thanks in advance for your replies > > 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 Tue Sep 12 06:25:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8BKOuC11321 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 06:24:56 +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-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 e8BKOlt11317 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 06:24:48 +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 e8BKOg022304 for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 16:24:42 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000911160703.00b222c0@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, 11 Sep 2000 16:25:38 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000911074401.00a95c50@127.0.0.1> <00090711233400.03596@psa836> <4.3.2.7.1.20000911074401.00a95c50@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:07 AM 9/11/00, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >At 07:05 AM 9/7/00, David wrote: > > > >>Matchpoints, neither vulnerable, ACBL sectional pairs > >> > >> K > >> K98 > >> AT9843 > >> J42 > >>QJ8 A752 > >>7543 AQT > >>KJ76 Q52 > >>75 KQ9 > >> T9643 > >> J62 > >> - > >> AT863 > >> > >>W N E S > >> 1N p > >>p 2C(1) p 2D(2) > >>x p p xx > >>p p p > >> > >>(1) Intended as Cappelletti, not alerted > >>(2) Also not alerted > >> > >>After the SQ lead, North remembers that Cappelletti is alertable, and > >>informs the opponents. West calls the director (actually, this is > >>North's responsibility). > >> > >>The director comes to the table with a record of the hand. While she > >>is studying the auction, she accidentally shows the hand record to the > >>players. > >> > >>Any further play on this hand is not bridge, but how do you assign > >>scores? > > > >L12C1 applies only "when... a result cannot be obtained", and that isn't > >the case here; we know what the contract is (2DXX), and can easily > >determine the "likely" or "at all probable" results. > > No, that is assigning. No result was or could be obtained, so L12C2 >does not come into play. I don't follow David's argument, as I don't see how he can argue that "no result... could be obtained". We have a contract and an opening lead. Had South claimed some number of tricks in 2DXX without a statement, we would have no trouble deriving an adjudicated result, and, if we wish to do so, can use exactly the same reasoning to do so here. > You have assigned a score to get a score to allow you to assign. Ok >in Alice in wonderland, but not otherwise. I have not "assigned a score to get a score" (what score am I supposed to have assigned to get to 2DXX-2?); I have "assigned" only a contract and opening lead "to get a score" -- the ones that were reached and made, respectively, at the table. This is no different than what I (and, I beleive, any of us) would do in the "claim with no line" case. As I see it, the TD *must* apply L12C1 when "no result can be obtained", and *must* apply L12C2 when "a result [has] actually [been] obtained". In this case, neither applies -- no result *has been* obtained, but one *can be*, without overmuch difficulty -- leaving it open to interpretation (presumably the WBFLC's, or, failing that, the SO's, or failing that the TD's) which to apply in this case. I don't know the answer, but do believe that the laws don't provide it, leaving it an open question for BLML (or anyone else who wants to take a shot at it). Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 12 09:02:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8BN1cC11382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 09:01:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8BN1Ut11378 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 09:01:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8BGA4r06008 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 16:10:04 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Bridge Laws Subject: Effect of a penalty in KO play (was Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal 20) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 15:55:00 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <39BCDE25.50C04F34@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <39BCDE25.50C04F34@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00091116100403.05790@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, Herman De Wael wrote: > (actual case unimportant - EW used a convention that was not > on their CC) > The Committee's decision: > Score adjusted to: both sides receive: > 75% of Six no-trumps, made, NS +1440 > 25% of Three no-trumps, +3, NS + 690 > > Penalty > The Committee penalized East-West > for their breach of the Conditions of Contest, the penalty > being a reduction > of 3 imps in their score. > 75% of +13 = + 9.75 > 25% of + 1 = + 0.25 > Penalty + 3.00 > Outcome + 13.00 > These methods can be recommended. > > (the Last is Grattan's comment on the calculation) > > (this is HDW talking) > > However ! > > This is a knock-out match !! > > I would hope to see that AC decisions are independent of the > method of scoring. Of course a penalty shall be expressed > either as 10% or 3 IMPs, but we all know these to be > equivalent. But this is a different penalty indeed. > > If this had been during the first week of the Olympiad, the > result would have been. > > To the team of NS (NOs) +10 IMPs > To the team of EW (Os) -13 IMPs > > Resulting in something like 15-14 VP. > > That is the true meaning of equity + penalty. > > But since this is a knock out stage, I believe something > akin to L86B should be applied, and the result on the board > (for both sides) should be +/1 11.5 IMPs. > In effect, a double-normal penalty has been imposed here. I believe the effcet of a procedural or discpilinary penalty *on the offenders* should be independent of the form of scoring. Thus, in a Swiss scored at win-loss, Team A beats team B by 3 IMPs at the table, but is penalized 6 IMPs. Both teams lose the match. This penalty is sufficient to turn a 3-IMP win into a loss. In a KO, if the same penalty is imposed, it should still deny team A a victory. Halving the penalty would turn the KO into a tie. While is true that team B gets a bonus from team A's penalty in the KO, this is a secondary effect. When team A is penalized, some other team in the event has to move up. If the penalty drops team A from first place in either the KO or swiss, the team that would have finished second must take first place, whether or not this is team B. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 12 09:16:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8BNG1K11400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 09:16:01 +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 e8BNFnt11396 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 09:15:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.19] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13YcnW-0004Y4-00; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:15:35 +0100 Message-ID: <000801c01c46$4dcad200$135608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] First steps in jurisprudence Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 23:34:31 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0063_01C01C48.D5B97CA0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: 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_0063_01C01C48.D5B97CA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Grattan Endicott; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 09:56:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.133] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13YdRV-0004uz-00; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:56:53 +0100 Message-ID: <001401c01c4c$13335f80$855608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" , "Herman De Wael" References: <39BCDE25.50C04F34@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal 20 Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:42:35 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 2:29 PM Subject: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal 20 ------------------ \x/ ----------------- > > (the Last is Grattan's comment on the calculation) > +=+ As the mouthpiece of the defunct (since Friday) CoP Group. We now have a quadrumvirate nominated to develop and publish jurisprudence (and to fashion a change of words following one CoPG decision). +=+ > > (this is HDW talking) > > However ! > > This is a knock-out match !! > +=+ I do believe the AC knew this. +=+ > ---------------- \x/ --------- > > If this had been during the first week of the Olympiad, the > result would have been. > > To the team of NS (NOs) +10 IMPs > To the team of EW (Os) -13 IMPs > +=+ Really? Who says this? +=+ > > In effect, a double-normal penalty has been imposed here. > +=+ Is this illegal? +=+ > > Does Grattan agree with this analysis ? > Should it not be put to the Lausanne group ? > +=+ Too late! And anyway they were not responsible for decisions in a particular case.+=+ > > If I might be so bold as to offer a suggestion. Maybe the > CoC should define a "standard penalty" and clearly state > what the standard penalty amounts to in different types of > tournament. > +=+ The CoP Group was not inclined to state more than the principle, believing it right to leave to regulating authorities and ACs/Directors to follow their inclinations in methods of applying 12C3 and in assessing penalties. The WBF Appeals Committee in Maastricht made its choice (see elsewhere), but had no wish to do more than offer a lead - others will follow, or not. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 12 09:57:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8BNvC111425 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 09:57:12 +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 e8BNv2t11419 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 09:57:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.133] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13YdRY-0004uz-00; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:56:56 +0100 Message-ID: <001501c01c4c$14c4ade0$855608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] Unpublished, as far as I know. Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:54:29 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01C01C54.018FB640" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: 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_0007_01C01C54.018FB640 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Grattan Endicott; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 10:55:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13YeLs-000COy-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 01:55:08 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 21:03:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastrict Appeal #3 References: <200009031748.NAA26632@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200009031748.NAA26632@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" >> Nor is it the scribe's job to add explanatory remarks to the decision. > >Obviously it isn't now. The question is, why shouldn't it be? There >are often facts that are obvious to all members of the committee and >thus not discussed explicitly that may not be obvious to readers of the >reports. Or in the example case, there was a simple mathematical >calculation that perhaps 50% of readers can do trivially but the other >50% will find a complete mystery. Why not help them out? > >> Apart from any other consideration, these reports are vetted by the >> Committee Chairman [cf Reporting of Appeals, CoP]: do you really want the >> Chairman to see the scribe has added something the Committee has >> deliberately omitted? > >This seems to be an argument in favor of adding explanatory comments. >If the scribe is mistaken or adds something that goes beyond simple >explanation or was deliberately, as opposed to accidentally or >thoughtlessly, omitted, the chairman can have it removed. > >"It isn't done," is not an argument against doing something! _Why_ is >it a bad idea for the scribe to add incontrovertible facts, properly >labeled, to AC reports? I can believe there may be good reasons, but >I'm waiting to hear them. Well, in this case the Committee decided not to publish the details of the calculation, despite some BLMLers assuming the scribe is lying or stupid. So what do you want him to add? An explanation that the Committee has decided should not be added? Look, it looks a very strange and quite possibly wrong decision not publish the details of how they calculated it, but the committee took that decision, and the fact that BLML assumes Herman was incompetent or lying or something in following a Committee taken decision I consider completely disgraceful. Now, tell me: how do you know the decision was wrong, as all BLML assumes? Yes, it looks wrong to me, but unless you know why they made this decision, how can you be sure it was wrong? -- 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 Sep 12 10:56:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8C0tQn11478 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 10:55:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8C0tAt11458 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 10:55:10 +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 13YeLk-000CP1-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 01:55:06 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 20:51:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Is 1C natural? 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 Norman Scorbie wrote: > > > >>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. Exactly: so it needs something more than that it can be passed. you need a better description than non-forcing. You suggest that the difference is that you are not expected to pass a Multi: ok, that's fair. -- 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 Sep 12 10:56:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8C0tPU11477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 10:55:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8C0tCt11461 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 10:55:13 +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 13YeLr-000COx-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 01:55:08 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 20:55:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastrict Appeal #3 References: <382060057.967718099815.JavaMail.root@web595-ec.mail.com> <035501c01449$310ede40$1e3a1dc2@rabbit> In-Reply-To: <035501c01449$310ede40$1e3a1dc2@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: >The appeal's write-up clearly states >that the AC was too lazy to work out the details: >"The Committee did not want to quantify this chance". >Thats problem 1 with this decision. The appeal's write-up says "The Committee did not want to quantify this chance". Nowhere does it say they were too lazy. That is just an unwarranted assumption. Do you really have any reason to assume Herman is a liar? I don't. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 12 10:56:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8C0tvg11495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 10:55:57 +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-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 e8C0tgt11489 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 10:55:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13YeLs-000COz-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 01:55:32 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 01:47:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastricht 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 David Stevenson wrote: >======================================== >Peter Gill wrote: > >Fred will be in Maastricht in a couple of days (not playing, >I wonder if he will be coopted as an expert player onto ACs?), >so some of you can chat to him about the solutions to the >problem then. >======================================== > > > No, the Appeals Committee was decided in advance by Jose Damiani, and >there is no intention to add to it. The Committee comprises: > >Appeals Committee: > >Bobby Wolff (Chairman, USA), > >Joan Gerard (Chairman, USA), > >John Wignall (Chairman, New Zealand), > >Grattan Endicott (Co-ordinator, England), > >Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), > >David Stevenson (Scribe, England), > >Richard Colker (USA), > >Ernesto d'Orsi (Brazil), > >Jean-Paul Meyer (France), > >Dan Morse (USA), > >Jeffrey Polisner (USA), > >Nissan Rand (Israel) > > While Herman and I are scribes, that is additional: we are full members >of Committees. Of course, immediately after I wrote the above, they added Jens Auken (Denmark). -- 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 Sep 12 10:56:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8C0tJF11472 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 10:55:19 +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 e8C0t9t11457 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 10:55:10 +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 13YeLk-000CP0-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 01:55:02 +0100 Message-ID: <1ItziNA0cTv5EwTM@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 20:49:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Is 1C natural? References: <000801c0122a$ec8f13e0$35df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <000801c0122a$ec8f13e0$35df36cb@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: >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. Even so, it probably takes more than a couple of dozen people to define a system as continent-wide standard, especially for Europe. I prefer the standard system around here not to be defined by such a small number of people. >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. A trend, maybe, but your first post had a much closer definition of this alleged European standard, including various definitions of 18-19 and such. I think the statement that openings showing 5+, 5+, 4+, 2+ is a trend in Europe is as far as one can go. it certainly is not European Standard of anything like that. *And* that does not make the 1C natural. -- 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 Sep 12 10:56:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8C0tnl11494 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 10:55:49 +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-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 e8C0tct11486 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 10:55:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13YeLs-000CP0-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 01:55:34 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 01:52:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal #3 References: <000d01c01ba5$a3be85e0$5c5408c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <000d01c01ba5$a3be85e0$5c5408c3@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: Ed Reppert >To: David Stevenson >> > It is helpful to assume that an AC that has a special >> >reason not to follow normal procedure has a reason rather than to assume >> >they are wrong. >> >> Indeed. However, the fact they have (apparently deliberately) >> concealed both the method by which they arrived at 7 imps and the >> reason for that concealment is, to say the least, curious. >+=+ I have not read previous messages in this thread. >'Normal procedure' interests me; what is 'normal'? >I thought the procedure here was entirely 'normal' >in terms of the WBF stated policy? Well, I know it is getting the cart before the horse, but it was followed by a number of published appeals where the report did quantify. In my view, quantifying L12C3 decisions *is* normal WBF procedure. -- 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 Sep 12 10:56:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8C0tWh11483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 10:55:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8C0tLt11474 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 10:55:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13YeLk-000COz-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 01:55:01 +0100 Message-ID: <+YTxGKANWTv5EwSs@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 20:42:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Is 1C natural? References: <007d01c0121e$f3df7240$b5e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <007d01c0121e$f3df7240$b5e136cb@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: >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". Well, I am fairly well-known for thinking the definition of convention in the Law book is a joke in extremely poor taste, but here you have gone too far. In my view, the intent behind the definition is clear enough, and then the wrong people got hold of it. But do not blame the definition just because you want to go further. >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. Why on earth would that be a good definition of natural? >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 is a very reasonable way of playing. I play that way with Ron Higgins. But why on earth call it natural? Of course it isn't natural! When I was discussing it at Maastricht Richard Grenside said "Do you really think a bid is natural when the hand can have three suits longer than the one bid?". Sounds fair to me. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 12 11:47:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8C1lIK11569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 11:47:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8C1lEt11565 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 11:47:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.104.32]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20000912015032.OCPA804.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop>; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 13:50:32 +1200 Message-ID: <04c401c01c5a$a15dfe60$ea6860cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "bridge-laws" References: <001501c01c4c$14c4ade0$855608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Unpublished, as far as I know. Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 13:41:48 +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 Which bid/call has been deemed a BSC? The opening multi or the pass? The multi is not a BSC by definition and the pass I don't believe meets the defintion of a convention. Pass clearly shows willingness to play in the last named denomination nor does this pass seem to meet the definition hidden in L30C - Such a pass does not promise values in another denomination nor does deny them. 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 Tue Sep 12 12:15:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8C2EOD11607 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 12:14:24 +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 (f16.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8C2EDt11603 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 12:14:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 19:14:03 -0700 Received: from 172.128.182.19 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 02:14:03 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.128.182.19] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastrict Appeal #3 Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 19:14:03 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Sep 2000 02:14:03.0514 (UTC) FILETIME=[1F1255A0:01C01C5F] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson >Thomas Dehn wrote: > >The appeal's write-up clearly states > >that the AC was too lazy to work out the details: > >"The Committee did not want to quantify this chance". > >Thats problem 1 with this decision. > > The appeal's write-up says "The Committee did not want to quantify >this chance". Nowhere does it say they were too lazy. That is just an >unwarranted assumption. > > Do you really have any reason to assume Herman is a liar? I don't. There seems something defeating to the purpose of bothering to write up and report an appeals case if the dialog that lead to the decision is omitted. I could grasp at causes -- hiding something, lazy, going outside the law to make a ruling -- and you can object that no where does it say the AC did such a thing. The omission could have conveniently gotten rid of that, if necessary. Regardless, the outward appearance of the situation is unfavorable and it's unfortunate that you think Herman's character was the casualty in someone else's perspective. That said, I don't think the ruling on this appeal is necessarily wrong, but the strong objection to having stenographer-quality, uncensored write-ups of appeals is distasteful. -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 Sep 12 12:35:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8C2Yt711621 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 12:34:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8C2Yot11617 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 12:34:50 +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 MAA11416 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 12:30:27 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 13:30:45 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] did insufficient to protect his own back ? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 13:29:16 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 12/09/2000 01:27:50 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk R wrote: "In effect, the Maastricht committee has ruled: *If you do not bother to look at the opponents' system card, you should be fined 3 imps.*" David Stevenson wrote: "I *really* dislike pejorative re-wording of this sort. Why not let the original wording stand? Because your re-wording gives a totally different opinion. A *much* fairer comment on the decision would be 'In effect, the Maastricht committee has decided:' '*If you do not bother to look at the opponents' system card, AND you claim to be damaged by a failure to alert, AND it is in a normal auction, AND ...., AND ...., you should be fined 3 imps.*' Nothing in the original decision suggests you should be fined 3 imps every time you do not look at the opponents' system card, as your wording suggests." R writes again: A less ironical paraphrase of the Maastricht committee decision is: *If an opponent's call has a strong chance of being conventional, you may not assume it is natural merely because there is no opposing Alert.* This is analogous to the Australian Bridge Federation's *self-alerting* regulation. Doubles, redoubles, cuebids, and calls above 3NT are deemed to be intrinsically unusual. Whether or not any of these actions are conventional, they *must not* be alerted in Australia. However, the call in question in Maastricht was a conventional 2H opening bid. In the original version of the ABF self-alerting regulation, openings at the 2 and 3 level (including jump overcalls) were not alertable. This was changed, as it gave an unfair advantage to those using Ghestem overcalls, transfer preempts or *conventional 2H openings*. Best wishes R -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 12 16:22:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8C6LRe11726 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 16:21:27 +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 e8C6LGt11719 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 16:21:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.55] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13YjRG-0007HY-00; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 07:21:03 +0100 Message-ID: <005201c01c81$bdaa7e00$375408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Peter Gill" , "Bridge Laws" References: <002d01c017ff$db3d4960$abdd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] did insufficient to protect his own back ? Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 07:16:46 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 1:41 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] did insufficient to protect his own back ? > > > I have to admit that I have not seen the WBF Alerting Rules > for seven years. This may affect my comments. > +=+ Extract from the WBF Alerting regulations: " Players who participate in WBF events are expected to protect themselves to a large extent. They are also expected to observe the spirit of the Laws as well as the letter. Full disclosure is vital. " This is nothing new. It applied as long ago as 1985 (as an appeals committee pointed out to a player who did not enquire about one call in SaoPaulo) and no doubt well before that. ~ 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 Sep 12 16:22:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8C6LVS11727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 16:21:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8C6L6t11716 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 16:21:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.55] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13YjRF-0007HY-00; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 07:21:01 +0100 Message-ID: <005101c01c81$bcc722e0$375408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Cc: "Gary Blaiss" , "David Burn" , "Nick Doe" Subject: [BLML] Interpretation and requested change of words Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 06:35:27 +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; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 16:25:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from medvesajt.anu.edu.au (medvesajt.anu.edu.au [150.203.35.241]) by rsc.anu.edu.au (8.10.0/8.10.0) with SMTP id e8C6PjK14914 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 17:25:45 +1100 (EST) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 17:25:43 +1100 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@medvesajt.anu.edu.au To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Action Replay Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk BLMLers will recall the thread a few months ago where, using bidding cards, a 4H splinter was doubled by LHO and followed by two passes. The bidder now picked up their bidding cards, entered 4H _undoubled_ on their score sheet and went down in 4H. During the score agreement, the double came to light... but the auction never finished... what a mess. First hand of the night at the club this jewel comes up... Bd 19 K Vul EW K9532 Dlr S T3 Q9653 62 AQT953 QT4 - A8642 KQJ AK2 J874 J874 AJ876 975 T S W N E P 1NT P 3S P 3NT P 4H X P P 1NT was Precision, 13-15 3S was strong with spades 4H was apparently undiscussed I sat North, and was pleased to pass partner's lead-directing double. East now picked up his bidding cards and partner considered his lead. Having noticed the double, and that East had not passed, I (as North) was uncertain of my ethical obligations. My holding gave me an excellent idea that something was amiss. I don't yet know if it was because the double was not seen, or because the 4H bid was a misbid for 4S. I saw the options as: a) North could announce "4H doubled" as if it were a matter of course for me to do so. Then East will observe the problem (if indeed there is one), and summon the director, a BLML reader. Since it is still East's bid, then he will be allowed to make it and the opponents will make 10-12 tricks in spades. b) North could do nothing, accept partner's exposed card during the auction as a lead, draw trumps and crossruff for at least 7 tricks NS. c) North could annouce "4H" with various different intonations to express a degree of surprise or indifference which will lead to the same scenario as a) when East intended to have bid 4S all along. Note that there has been no infraction yet, other than the failure of East to follow correct procedure with the bidding box (L74A), and possible failure of East to "pay sufficient attention to the game" (L79B1). After partner tables his lead face down, there has still been no infraction. When that card is face up, there has been an infraction, but attention has not yet been drawn to it, so North is not required to summon the director. NS acquired +1400 after suboptimal play by the play by declarer and the defense. East commented after dummy faced that "Something's gone wrong here partner". East was then surprised to hear his partner say that it was doubled, and then muttered that he'd missed the double and wasn't used to these blasted bidding boxes. Questions for BLML 1) Did North act ethically? 2) How would you rule if after the opening lead, and in response to declarer's observation, dummy made a comment to the effect that "It was doubled, partner"? 3) How would you rule if after South tabled a lead face down, West observed that the auction was not yet over? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 12 18:09:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8C87N711815 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 18:07:23 +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 e8C87Ct11807 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 18:07:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.139] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13Yl5w-0008i9-00; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 09:07:08 +0100 Message-ID: <008601c01c90$8ff2db60$375408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <000d01c01ba5$a3be85e0$5c5408c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal #3 Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 09:07:05 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 1:52 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal #3 ------------ \X/ ---------- > >+=+ I have not read previous messages in this thread. > >'Normal procedure' interests me; what is 'normal'? > >I thought the procedure here was entirely 'normal' > >in terms of the WBF stated policy? > > Well, I know it is getting the cart before the horse, but it was > followed by a number of published appeals where the report did quantify. > > In my view, quantifying L12C3 decisions *is* normal WBF procedure. > +=+ It is getting to be common, but it is not standard. The CoP Group has made it clear that there is freedom to adopt various methods and the WBF TAC has not ruled out or even discouraged expressions of the equity made directly in imps or matchpoints (a procedure already acknowledged in the laws). You will have noted that the TAC policy guidance for Directors and ACs in M'cht did not specify a form in which the equity should be expressed. It amuses me that all that happened here was that it was seen that views on percentages were close enough for the committee to cut straight to the effects of them in terms of imps and decide where to settle. The fantasies of the world at large were not taken into account. WBF ACs continue to have this option available to them, and I doubt this will change. The EBL has done the same sort of thing when occasion served. ~ 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 Sep 12 18:09:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8C87NB11816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 18:07:23 +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 e8C87Bt11805 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 18:07:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.139] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13Yl5u-0008i9-00; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 09:07:07 +0100 Message-ID: <008501c01c90$8f18a800$375408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal #3 Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 07:42:49 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 1:47 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal #3 ----------- \x/ -------- > >Appeals Committee: > > > >Bobby Wolff (Chairman, USA), > > +=+ Small correction: Bobby Wolff (President, 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 Tue Sep 12 18:09:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8C87XT11820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 18:07:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8C87It11814 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 18:07:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.139] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13Yl5t-0008i9-00; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 09:07:05 +0100 Message-ID: <008401c01c90$8e3e74a0$375408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Wayne Burrows" , "bridge-laws" References: <001501c01c4c$14c4ade0$855608c3@dodona> <04c401c01c5a$a15dfe60$ea6860cb@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] Unpublished, as far as I know. Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 07:36:29 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Grattan Endicott ; bridge-laws Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 2:41 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Unpublished, as far as I know. > Which bid/call has been deemed a BSC? > > The opening multi or the pass? > > The multi is not a BSC by definition and the pass I don't believe meets the > defintion of a convention. Pass clearly shows willingness to play in the > last named denomination nor does this pass seem to meet the definition > hidden in L30C - Such a pass does not promise values in another denomination > nor does deny them. > +=+ An opening 2 bid which, in its weak possibilities, as a matter of partnership understanding does not guarantee possession of a specified suit. (This is no longer multi as defined in the CB and consequently loses its protection from this requirement.) ~ 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 Sep 12 19:33:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8C9WTV11869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 19:32:29 +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 e8C9WJt11865 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 19:32:20 +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 13YmQD-000Mpp-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 10:32:10 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 02:02:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000911074401.00a95c50@127.0.0.1> <00090711233400.03596@psa836> <4.3.2.7.1.20000911074401.00a95c50@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20000911160703.00b222c0@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20000911160703.00b222c0@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 10:07 AM 9/11/00, David wrote: >> You have assigned a score to get a score to allow you to assign. Ok >>in Alice in wonderland, but not otherwise. > >I have not "assigned a score to get a score" (what score am I supposed to >have assigned to get to 2DXX-2?); I have "assigned" only a contract and >opening lead "to get a score" -- the ones that were reached and made, >respectively, at the table. This is no different than what I (and, I >beleive, any of us) would do in the "claim with no line" case. OK, you have assigned a result. But you cannot. To obtain a result you let the hand be played out. >As I see it, the TD *must* apply L12C1 when "no result can be obtained", >and *must* apply L12C2 when "a result [has] actually [been] obtained". In >this case, neither applies -- no result *has been* obtained, but one *can >be*, without overmuch difficulty -- leaving it open to interpretation >(presumably the WBFLC's, or, failing that, the SO's, or failing that the >TD's) which to apply in this case. I don't know the answer, but do believe >that the laws don't provide it, leaving it an open question for BLML (or >anyone else who wants to take a shot at it). The Laws are quite clear. If you do not let the board be played out then no result can be obtained and L12C1 applies. -- 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 Sep 12 19:49:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8C9mvm11886 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 19:48:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r17.mx.aol.com (imo-r17.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8C9mpt11882 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 19:48:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.15.) id 3.c4.9050ac5 (9677); Tue, 12 Sep 2000 05:48:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 05:48:30 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] Rostand it ain't 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 Enjoyed reading this. Thanks for the reference. BUT, I hope no one thinks that the TD ruling was not to accept the double squeeze. We did, the AC had trouble with that - not "us." 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 Sep 12 21:08:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8CB7ON11920 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 21:07:24 +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 e8CB7Dt11916 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 21:07:14 +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 NAA23842; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 13:07:53 +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 NAA16185; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 13:06:45 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000912131646.00857100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 13:16:46 +0200 To: "Wayne Burrows" , "Grattan Endicott" , "bridge-laws" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Unpublished, as far as I know. In-Reply-To: <04c401c01c5a$a15dfe60$ea6860cb@laptop> References: <001501c01c4c$14c4ade0$855608c3@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 13:41 12/09/00 +1200, Wayne Burrows wrote: >Which bid/call has been deemed a BSC? > >The opening multi or the pass? > >The multi is not a BSC by definition and the pass I don't believe meets the >defintion of a convention. Pass clearly shows willingness to play in the >last named denomination nor does this pass seem to meet the definition >hidden in L30C - Such a pass does not promise values in another denomination >nor does deny them. AG : I'm in full agreement with Wayne here. Passing means 'this seems a good contract for us'. It doesn't mean 'we will win this'. The Multi-ist passes because he thinks 2S -6, or whatever, will be good for his side, his opponents having a game. This is just a gamble. If your partner opens 3NT (showing plentiful, non-solid, clubs), you might pass on a Yarborough, thinking that 3NT won't be doubled, for -450, while an escape to 4C would be doubled, for -500 or worse. IMHO this doesn't make the pass conventional, thus it may not be subject to limitations. 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 Sep 12 21:50:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8CBo9a11958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 21:50:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f279.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.236.157]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8CBo3t11954 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 21:50:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 04:49:55 -0700 Received: from 192.160.109.219 by lw7fd.law7.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 11:49:55 GMT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.219] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Rostand it ain't Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 11:49:55 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Sep 2000 11:49:55.0323 (UTC) FILETIME=[918DFCB0:01C01CAF] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Adam Beneschan >To: "Bridge Laws" >CC: adam@irvine.com >Subject: Re: [BLML] Rostand it ain't >Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 10:22:09 PDT > >David Burn wrote: > > > Back from Maastricht, but uns*bscr*b*d to the list before I went, so > > don't know what has or has not been written on the Great Hallberg > > Claim. But here is something that I was challenged to write by the > > English npc after the event - I thought it might amuse some of you > > also. > >Well done, David! My only regret is that your npc didn't also >challenge you to write a melody to which to set the lyrics. My mind >instinctively wants to conjure up some melody to sing this to, but >unfortunately everything it comes up with seems to lead to "And now he >is the ruler of the Queen's na-vee . . ." which doesn't fit >rhythmically, as well as in other ways. So I'm afraid whoever sets >this to music will need to be a lot more culturally literate than I >am. > > -- Adam Try 'Greensleeves'. It works for Jabberwocky, and with only a little cheating works here. _________________________________________________________________________ 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 Sep 12 22:05:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8CC4wJ12021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 22:04:58 +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 e8CC4mt12017 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 22:04:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.0.ap (resu)) id OAA08238; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 14:05:28 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id OAA19286; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 14:04:21 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000912141422.00859100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 14:14:22 +0200 To: Mark Abraham , Bridge Laws Mailing List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Action Replay 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 17:25 12/09/00 +1100, Mark Abraham wrote: > >Bd 19 K >Vul EW K9532 >Dlr S T3 > Q9653 >62 AQT953 >QT4 - >A8642 KQJ >AK2 J874 > J874 > AJ876 > 975 > T > >S W N E >P 1NT P 3S >P 3NT P 4H >X P P > >1NT was Precision, 13-15 >3S was strong with spades >4H was apparently undiscussed > > >1) Did North act ethically? AG : I'm not impressed by the argument that 4H was a lead director ; South figures to be on lead. Perhaps it was some sort of stripe-tailed ape double ? If North marks his astonishment as to the final contract, he tells the other players he's got hearts. If South wanted to psyche a double, so that declarer goes wrong in the play, it would spoil it. And there is always the possibility that the astonishment creates UI. So, yes, North was right in not saying anything. >2) How would you rule if after the opening lead, and in response to >declarer's observation, dummy made a comment to the effect that "It was >doubled, partner"? AG : what the heck ? The contract is now 4H X ! >3) How would you rule if after South tabled a lead face down, West observed >that the auction was not yet over? AG : I think he has the right to do so. He is not the dummy at this time, according to the definition of 'dummy'. His remark may awaken partner, but it is also quite possible that East, having decided that he'd rather play 4H X in a 4-3 (West denied 3 spades, remember ?) than 6S in a 6-2 with bad news all around, is perfectly conscious of what happens. And ... how many times did it happen that I was in balancing position, and RHO thought the bidding was over, and I made him remark I still had the right to bid. Or I made remark thaty partner still had the right to bid. 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 Tue Sep 12 22:06:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8CC6Zn12033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 22:06:35 +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 e8CC6Pt12029 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 22:06:26 +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 e8CC6L898604 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 08:06:22 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000912075959.00aae350@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, 12 Sep 2000 08:07:19 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastrict Appeal #3 In-Reply-To: References: <200009031748.NAA26632@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200009031748.NAA26632@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 04:03 PM 9/11/00, David wrote: > Look, it looks a very strange and quite possibly wrong decision not >publish the details of how they calculated it, but the committee took >that decision, and the fact that BLML assumes Herman was incompetent or >lying or something in following a Committee taken decision I consider >completely disgraceful. > > Now, tell me: how do you know the decision was wrong, as all BLML >assumes? Yes, it looks wrong to me, but unless you know why they made >this decision, how can you be sure it was wrong? Perhaps the last several decades of national politics have made Americans terminally cynical about bare decisions that are announced with the reasoning behind them withheld for strange and mysterious reasons. The reason almost always turns out to be exactly what David states -- that unless you know why they made the decision they did, you can't be sure they were wrong! This is merely intended to explain to bemused non-Americans why so many members of BLML have inferred less than the purest motives to the committee's decision to withhold their reasoning. It is not intended as a comment on what may have actually gone on in Maastricht, of which I have no knowledge whatsoever beyond what has appeared on BLML. 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 Sep 12 22:07:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8CC7FH12045 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 22:07:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8CC7At12041 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 22:07:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.104.85]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20000912120853.OKEB700.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop>; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 00:08:53 +1200 Message-ID: <003c01c01cb1$40cf7220$556860cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "bridge-laws" References: <001501c01c4c$14c4ade0$855608c3@dodona> <04c401c01c5a$a15dfe60$ea6860cb@laptop> <008401c01c90$8e3e74a0$375408c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Unpublished, as far as I know. Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 00:01:56 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > +=+ An opening 2 bid which, in its weak possibilities, > as a matter of partnership understanding does not > guarantee possession of a specified suit. (This is no > longer multi as defined in the CB and consequently > loses its protection from this requirement.) > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ A standard multi does not have a specified suit. What is or where do I find the wording in the CB? It seems to me that 2d* p 2h p; p** p * 2d - weak in either major or some strong options has been defined as not a BSC and ** p even when holding spades and not hearts is not conventional and so cannot be regulated legitimately. What appears to be regulated is the players judgement or tactic(good or bad) to pass even when not holding the suit bid and having no inference that partner holds that suit (in fact often having an inference that partner does not hold that suit). 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 Tue Sep 12 22:09:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8CC8t912057 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 22:08:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8CC8mt12053 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 22:08:49 +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 OAA29244; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 14:07:10 +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 OAA21811; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 14:08:17 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000912141818.007a4320@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 14:18:18 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] BSC - more Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ... And an argument I forgot to put ahead : how is it possible that the fact that the multi-ist can make a random pass will affect the definition of the 2D opening ? It is still "either weak 2 H or S, or ...", so it cannot change from red to brown, simply from the meaning of ulterior bids, since it it the *opening* which is red or brown, not the developement. 'an opening at 2-level which ...' 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 Sep 12 22:51:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8CCopP12132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 22:50:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8CCoit12128 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 22:50:45 +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 e8CCod072038 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 08:50:39 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000912084317.00b257c0@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, 12 Sep 2000 08:51:37 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000911160703.00b222c0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20000911074401.00a95c50@127.0.0.1> <00090711233400.03596@psa836> <4.3.2.7.1.20000911074401.00a95c50@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20000911160703.00b222c0@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:02 PM 9/11/00, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > >As I see it, the TD *must* apply L12C1 when "no result can be obtained", > >and *must* apply L12C2 when "a result [has] actually [been] obtained". In > >this case, neither applies -- no result *has been* obtained, but one *can > >be*, without overmuch difficulty -- leaving it open to interpretation > >(presumably the WBFLC's, or, failing that, the SO's, or failing that the > >TD's) which to apply in this case. I don't know the answer, but do believe > >that the laws don't provide it, leaving it an open question for BLML (or > >anyone else who wants to take a shot at it). > > The Laws are quite clear. If you do not let the board be played out >then no result can be obtained and L12C1 applies. I'm prepared to believe that this is correct, but I disagree that it is "quite clear". I see nothing in L12 that says this explicitly (I see how it might be inferred, but I can also see how the opposite position might be inferred as well). The laws in Chapter 10 don't address it either: L82B says, "To rectify an error in procedure the Director may... award an adjusted score." L82C says "if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score". L83 refers to "when he awards an adjusted score under Law 12". The term used consistently is "adjusted score", which directs us to L12C. No mention is made of "artifical score" or "assigned score", which would direct us to L12C1 or L12C2 respectively. It still looks to me like it's open for interpretation, but I'm quite prepared to be shown otherwise. What have I missed? 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 Sep 12 22:53:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8CCrJX12152 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 22:53:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8CCr8t12141 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 22:53:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-1.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.1]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA27523 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 14:53:01 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39BE04F3.2CD7BDC@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 12:26:59 +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] I shall tell you my conclusions when I have considered ...... References: <2hdjoVAuZap5EwQm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <39A65D62.849733D7@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > >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 ? > > So what happened to all the appeals you were writing up? All mine got > published! > > More to the point, I expect to see my name as *the* success of > Maastricht: probably the only player in this year's World Championship > with a 100% record: played two, won two. > I did not see your name in the team rosters, did I ? There was one Arthur Nonymous from Liverpool, yes. -- 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 Sep 12 22:53:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8CCrKw12153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 22:53:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8CCr9t12142 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 22:53:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-1.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.1]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA27555 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 14:53:05 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39BE0660.CAF5090C@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 12:33:04 +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] Maastrict 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: > > > > > Do you really have any reason to assume Herman is a liar? I don't. > > There seems something defeating to the purpose of bothering to write up > and report an appeals case if the dialog that lead to the decision is > omitted. > I am beginning to find this discussion personal and offensive. > I could grasp at causes -- hiding something, lazy, going outside the > law to make a ruling -- and you can object that no where does it say the AC > did such a thing. The omission could have conveniently gotten rid of that, > if necessary. > None of the above. One member calculated for himself how much IMPs he would give. Another came up with a similar answer. Three others agreed on the final IMP correction. Whyever should a write-up reflect more than this ? Yes, we can calculate backwards. But whyever should a write-up give more than what was actually said in the discussion. And for that matter, why should a write-up give everything that is said? One particular appeal took over an hour. The write-up was no longer than some of the others. > Regardless, the outward appearance of the situation is unfavorable and > it's unfortunate that you think Herman's character was the casualty in > someone else's perspective. > > That said, I don't think the ruling on this appeal is necessarily > wrong, but the strong objection to having stenographer-quality, uncensored > write-ups of appeals is distasteful. > The write-ups have never been intended to be stenographer type. > -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/ -- 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 Sep 12 22:53:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8CCrQs12156 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 22:53:26 +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 e8CCrFt12150 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 22:53:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-1.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.1]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA27568 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 14:53:07 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39BE06A7.880864DD@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 12:34:15 +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] Maastricht Appeal #3 References: <008501c01c90$8f18a800$375408c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > +=+ Small correction: > Bobby Wolff (President, USA) +=+ > I must have missed the elections then ? I thought one GWB was the candidate from Texas ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 13 00:18:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8CEHqt12239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 00:17:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8CEHgt12231 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 00:17:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13YqsS-00061p-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 15:17:38 +0100 Message-ID: <19Ms+ABSajv5EwRj@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 14:58:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal #3 References: <000d01c01ba5$a3be85e0$5c5408c3@dodona> <008601c01c90$8ff2db60$375408c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <008601c01c90$8ff2db60$375408c3@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: David Stevenson >> >+=+ I have not read previous messages in this thread. >> >'Normal procedure' interests me; what is 'normal'? >> >I thought the procedure here was entirely 'normal' >> >in terms of the WBF stated policy? >> Well, I know it is getting the cart before the horse, but it was >> followed by a number of published appeals where the report did quantify. >> >> In my view, quantifying L12C3 decisions *is* normal WBF procedure. >+=+ It is getting to be common, but it is not standard. I said normal, not standard. I believe quantifying L12C3 decisions is normal but not standard. >The CoP Group has made it clear that there is freedom >to adopt various methods and the WBF TAC has not >ruled out or even discouraged expressions of the equity >made directly in imps or matchpoints (a procedure >already acknowledged in the laws). You will have noted >that the TAC policy guidance for Directors and ACs in >M'cht did not specify a form in which the equity should >be expressed. > It amuses me that all that happened here was that >it was seen that views on percentages were close enough >for the committee to cut straight to the effects of them >in terms of imps and decide where to settle. The >fantasies of the world at large were not taken into >account. WBF ACs continue to have this option available >to them, and I doubt this will change. The EBL has done >the same sort of thing when occasion served. Well, if that is the only reason for the action taken then I shall join the majority view and agree that the AC made a mistake. Not Herman, though, as BLML has assumed. We are publishing appeals. I had assumed that there would be a good reason to hide part of the reasoning, not that the AC could not be bothered. I have been defending this AC and its scribe and I shall be very disappointed if the reason is [as some have alleged] that the AC could not be bothered to quantify. -- 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 Sep 13 00:18:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8CEHfW12229 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 00:17:41 +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 e8CEHYt12223 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 00:17:35 +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 13YqsK-00061n-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 15:17:29 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 11:52:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Action Replay 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: >BLMLers will recall the thread a few months ago where, using bidding >cards, a 4H splinter was doubled by LHO and followed by two passes. The >bidder now picked up their bidding cards, entered 4H _undoubled_ on their >score sheet and went down in 4H. During the score agreement, the double >came to light... but the auction never finished... what a mess. > >First hand of the night at the club this jewel comes up... > >Bd 19 K >Vul EW K9532 >Dlr S T3 > Q9653 >62 AQT953 >QT4 - >A8642 KQJ >AK2 J874 > J874 > AJ876 > 975 > T > >S W N E >P 1NT P 3S >P 3NT P 4H >X P P > >1NT was Precision, 13-15 >3S was strong with spades >4H was apparently undiscussed > >I sat North, and was pleased to pass partner's lead-directing double. >East now picked up his bidding cards and partner considered his lead. > >Having noticed the double, and that East had not passed, I (as North) was >uncertain of my ethical obligations. My holding gave me an excellent idea >that something was amiss. I don't yet know if it was because the double >was not seen, or because the 4H bid was a misbid for 4S. I saw the options >as: > >a) North could announce "4H doubled" as if it were a matter of course for me >to do so. Then East will observe the problem (if indeed there is one), >and summon the director, a BLML reader. Since it is still East's bid, >then he will be allowed to make it and the opponents will make 10-12 >tricks in spades. > >b) North could do nothing, accept partner's exposed card during the >auction as a lead, draw trumps and crossruff for at least 7 tricks NS. > >c) North could annouce "4H" with various different intonations to express a >degree of surprise or indifference which will lead to the same scenario >as a) when East intended to have bid 4S all along. > >Note that there has been no infraction yet, other than the failure of East >to follow correct procedure with the bidding box (L74A), and possible >failure of East to "pay sufficient attention to the game" (L79B1). After >partner tables his lead face down, there has still been no infraction. >When that card is face up, there has been an infraction, but attention has >not yet been drawn to it, so North is not required to summon the director. > >NS acquired +1400 after suboptimal play by the play by declarer and >the defense. East commented after dummy faced that "Something's gone >wrong here partner". East was then surprised to hear his partner say >that it was doubled, and then muttered that he'd missed the double and >wasn't used to these blasted bidding boxes. > >Questions for BLML > >1) Did North act ethically? Did North believe that an irregularity had occurred? If East regularly passes by picking up his cards, then I am not worried. However, otherwise, North knew that partner was leading during the auction, and I believe he ought to stop this. >3) How would you rule if after South tabled a lead face down, West observed >that the auction was not yet over? That is the easy one! Tell him to pick his lead up and get on with the auction. -- 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 Sep 13 00:18:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8CEHpr12238 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 00:17:51 +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 e8CEHgt12230 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 00:17:42 +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 13YqsP-000624-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 15:17:36 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 11:46:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Re: Interpretation and requested change of words References: <005101c01c81$bcc722e0$375408c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <005101c01c81$bcc722e0$375408c3@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: >+=+ The WBFLC has minuted a request for copyright holders >when next printing the laws to make a change in the footnote to >Laws 69,70,71. In future this is to read: > "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71 'normal' includes >play that would be careless or inferior, but not irrational, for >the class of player involved." > The current footnote is interpreted as though it were >so worded. Wahey!!!! -- 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 Sep 13 01:31:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8CFUfJ12306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 01:30:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8CFUZt12302 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 01:30:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium ([194.75.226.70] helo=btinternet.com) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13Ys11-0001i5-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 16:30:31 +0100 From: dburn@btinternet.com Reply-to: dburn@btinternet.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 16:30:31 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal #3 Message-id: <39be4c17.531.0@btinternet.com> X-User-Info: 194.222.4.103 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: >>> In my view, quantifying L12C3 decisions *is* normal WBF procedure. >>+=+ It is getting to be common, but it is not standard. > I said normal, not standard. I believe quantifying L12C3 decisions is normal but not standard. normal, adj: according to rule, not deviating from the standard [Chambers] Though the difference between "normal" and "standard" in this context may be obvious to you, David, I am afraid that at least I among the rest of us am in need of further clarification. > I have been defending this AC and its scribe and I shall be very disappointed if the reason is [as some have alleged] that the AC could not be bothered to quantify. But it has quantified. That is, it has "fixed or expressed the quantity of" the penalty it awarded [op cit]. What it seems to have failed to do is to show cause why the quantity it has fixed or expressed is an appropriate quantity. However, if we are to accuse it of imprecision, let us at least be as precise as we can be in bringing the charges. 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 Sep 13 01:41:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8CFfhT12328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 01:41:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8CFfXt12320 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 01:41:34 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id QAA22406 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 16:41:25 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 16:41 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal #3 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: <008601c01c90$8ff2db60$375408c3@dodona> Grattan wrote: > It amuses me that all that happened here was that > it was seen that views on percentages were close enough > for the committee to cut straight to the effects of them > in terms of imps and decide where to settle. A statement in the write-up to that effect would have made life much easier for those of us who tried to defend the decision, as would a reference to L12c3* (actually it might have made such defence unnecessary). I hope Grattan's amusement does not prevent him from thinking about how including such things would improve the quality of future write-ups. *Uses of this law should probably also include a rationale for not applying L12c2. > The fantasies of the world at large were not taken into > account. Dismissing widespread ignorance of L12c3 in the face of an opaque ruling as "fantasy" seems a little arrogant. Surely we *want* the world at large to be interested in these rulings, and to learn from them. Below are two comments from RGB in reply to a post where I speculated (fairly accurately) on why the committee might have ruled as they did. : Thanks to everyone who explained Law 12C3 which I was : not familiar with (perhaps because the ACBL doesn't use it). : The committee's ruling makes more sense to me now (which : On that basis, the committee's ruling looks rather good, I just : wish it had been backed up with the appropriate commentary. Just RGB "noise", maybe - but I believe both posters to be experienced internationals. > WBF ACs continue to have this option available > to them, and I doubt this will change. The EBL has done > the same sort of thing when occasion served. No problem 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 Sep 13 01:41:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8CFfhr12329 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 01:41:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8CFfXt12321 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 01:41:34 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id QAA22398 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 16:41:25 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 16:41 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director 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, you have assigned a result. > > But you cannot. To obtain a result you let the hand be played > out. The TD could however instruct the players to finish the hand could she not? IMO the play of the hand is not going to affect the matchpoints won by either side so the UI is not "material" to the result. If the TD later discovers that such UI was material she can then issued an adjusted score under 12c2. I have temporarily mislaid my lawbook so I may be even more wrong than usual:-) 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 Wed Sep 13 02:44:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8CGhVJ12376 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 02:43:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8CGhNt12372 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 02:43:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA17281 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 12:45:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200009121645.MAA17281@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastrict Appeal #3 Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: References: <200009031748.NAA26632@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 12:45:48 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk First, congratulations to all BLMLers who were working Maastricht, as players, directors, organizers or AC members (if I've missed anyone, sorry!). From here in Waterloo, it looked like a very well-run and well-played tournament (even if our women lost the final). I've tried to clip what I can - I haven't succeeded too well. On 11 September 2000 at 21:03, David Stevenson wrote: >Steve Willner wrote: >>> From: "David Stevenson" >>> Nor is it the scribe's job to add explanatory remarks to the decision. >> >>Obviously it isn't now. The question is, why shouldn't it be? There >>are often facts that are obvious to all members of the committee and >>thus not discussed explicitly that may not be obvious to readers of the >>reports. Or in the example case, there was a simple mathematical >>calculation that perhaps 50% of readers can do trivially but the other >>50% will find a complete mystery. Why not help them out? >> Or, as the case was (according to Herman's report here), one did the calculation in his head, another said that seemed right according to hers; the rest agreed. Whether or not it is the Scribe's job to mention this, I (and others) believe it should be - especially in Maastricht, as all the scribes were well-known and respected Bridge Law experts. I know it is the Chairman's (whole AC's? Not sure here) responsibility to review the Appeal writeup that the Scribe has created, and that if such a thing were elided during that review, or if the Scribe was instructed to not put it in at all, then it isn't the Scribe's responsibility. Unfortunately, the person in User Interface gets the blame for everything - to the user, it's all interface problems. Here I speak from experience; I write computer program User Interfaces for a living. Note that I don't accuse Herman (or anyone else) of doing anything wrong. But something that is important both to those concerned about the results of the ruling and those who wish to use high-level appeals as examples of jurisprudence - which Grattan has repeatedly stated is to be done - was omitted. And unfortunately, this is a case where some people believe that the result was incorrect; obviously a shaky ruling where the reasoning behind the ruling is not given will be viewed with a more cynical eye than one where the reasoning, flawed though it may be, is published. The latter will get a "well, they blew it this time - oh well, they'll learn", the former "I wonder what they're hiding." I can't believe that anyone is stating that Herman did anything dodgy *deliberately* - we know him too well for that. If he is going to take an unpopular view, he is going to do it in full view, with complete explanation, and take the heat for what he believes to be right. >>> Apart from any other consideration, these reports are vetted by the >>> Committee Chairman [cf Reporting of Appeals, CoP]: do you really want the >>> Chairman to see the scribe has added something the Committee has >>> deliberately omitted? >> >>This seems to be an argument in favor of adding explanatory comments. >>If the scribe is mistaken or adds something that goes beyond simple >>explanation or was deliberately, as opposed to accidentally or >>thoughtlessly, omitted, the chairman can have it removed. >> >>"It isn't done," is not an argument against doing something! _Why_ is >>it a bad idea for the scribe to add incontrovertible facts, properly >>labeled, to AC reports? I can believe there may be good reasons, but >>I'm waiting to hear them. > > Well, in this case the Committee decided not to publish the details of >the calculation, despite some BLMLers assuming the scribe is lying or >stupid. So what do you want him to add? An explanation that the >Committee has decided should not be added? > Why did the Committee decide not to publish? I do not believe anyone is stating that the Scribe is lying or stupid. I do believe that they are saying that the procedure, if this procedure is allowed, is stupid - and while I'm not quite to the "stupid" level, it doesn't help alleviate the cynicism I and others feel when reading certain ACs' rulings, knowing that the way a decision was reached was deliberately omitted (whoever "decided" to omit it). In other words, we can't tell if the Committee decided to pull +7 IMPs out of thin air[1] or if they rolled a d12, or if they actually calculated the result somehow - and if so, how. Now if the ruling feels right, noone's going to notice; but if it feels wrong, people are going to assume the worst: "Oh, let's just give them 7 IMPs - the bar closes in 20 minutes." As Eric has pointed out, we in NA have every reason to believe that when those in Authority get close-lipped about something, it's because they'll be embarrassed if it gets out. Other parts of the world may not have got quite so cynical yet - or they are less used to almost everything being "open". > Look, it looks a very strange and quite possibly wrong decision not >publish the details of how they calculated it, but the committee took >that decision, and the fact that BLML assumes Herman was incompetent or >lying or something in following a Committee taken decision I consider >completely disgraceful. > So do I. And I may have been missing something, but the only person I can see who is putting more on Herman than "the Scribe's job should be this, and he didn't do it", perhaps even "he didn't do it. This exposes a hole in the Appeals writeup process - it should be part of the Scribe's job" is you. I know *you* don't believe anything more; I know *I* don't believe; I expect that the rest of us don't believe anything worse either. Please, can we take this out of specific people and talk about what an AC or a Scribe is supposed to do, is required to do, or should do? Yes, this happens to be a convenient example case, and a certain HdW was Scribe for it, and he happens to be a regular on BLML; but can we discuss the case without assuming anyone's impugning the people, unless (as in an unfortunate case on rgb right now) that is the, quite obvious, intent? > Now, tell me: how do you know the decision was wrong, as all BLML >assumes? Yes, it looks wrong to me, but unless you know why they made >this decision, how can you be sure it was wrong? Precisely. It's very, er, *convenient*, that we can't decide if the decision was wrong, isn't it? We don't have all the facts. If that's because someone chose not to give them, be it the Scribe, the AC chairman, or the director of Appeals, then it was probably a bad decision (at least it looks bad, and people *will* assume the worst). If that's because proper procedure was followed all the way, and yet we can't use the Appeal as precedent because we can't judge whether it was correct or not, then the procedure is flawed, and should be corrected. If it was just an honest mistake, given that people were putting in very long days consistently for two weeks; hey, they happen. We don't assume the people in the Top positions are perfect; after all, Bridge is a game of mistakes. But we can point out where the flaws are, or where the flaws will be seen to be (even if, if we knew everything, we would believe it was right, or at least reasonable), to help the system and the rulings of the Game we all love improve. And I don't believe that there is anyone on this List, lurker or otherwise, who doesn't want the Game to be better by having the rulings be better. I can't believe that there is anyone on this List who doesn't think the rulings, or the procedure involved in creating, giving, and publicising them, can't get better. Sorry to rant so much, but I *hate* it when things get personal - especially when I don't believe they were meant to be. And it's worse when the "personals" aren't me - at least I can defend myself. Michael. [1] This was originally a ruder expression. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 13 02:57:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8CGvCE12398 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 02:57:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8CGv2t12394 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 02:57:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA17578 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 12:59:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200009121659.MAA17578@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal #3 Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <39be4c17.531.0@btinternet.com> References: <39be4c17.531.0@btinternet.com> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 12:59:28 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 12 September 2000 at 16:30, dburn@btinternet.com wrote: >DWS wrote: > >>>> In my view, quantifying L12C3 decisions *is* >normal WBF procedure. > >>>+=+ It is getting to be common, but it is not >standard. > >> I said normal, not standard. I believe quantifying >L12C3 decisions is normal but not standard. > [definition snipped] >Though the difference between "normal" and "standard" >in this context may be obvious to you, David, I am >afraid that at least I among the rest of us am in need >of further clarification. > It made sense to me - but perhaps I'm more used to reading IEEE or ANSI standards than most. I assumed he meant "not required by standard, but commonly done, and generally thought of as a Good Thing." Like announcing the contract before the opening lead. >However, if we are to accuse it of imprecision, >let us at least be as precise as we can be in bringing the >charges. Ah, David - how glad we are to see you back. The facility with which you (and Grattan, in particular - others as well) construct with the English language is a joy to behold (at least, when I can understand it - thank heaven for on-line searchable OED). 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 Sep 13 03:21:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8CHLbW12453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 03:21:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.211.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e8CHLTt12449 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 03:21:31 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 51800 invoked for bounce); 12 Sep 2000 17:21:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.57.209) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 12 Sep 2000 17:21:23 -0000 Message-ID: <00c401c01cde$1e0d9d20$d1391dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <382060057.967718099815.JavaMail.root@web595-ec.mail.com> <035501c01449$310ede40$1e3a1dc2@rabbit> Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastrict Appeal #3 Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 19:22:20 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "David Stevenson" wrote: > Thomas Dehn wrote: > > >The appeal's write-up clearly states > >that the AC was too lazy to work out the details: > >"The Committee did not want to quantify this chance". > >Thats problem 1 with this decision. > > The appeal's write-up says "The Committee did not want to quantify > this chance". Nowhere does it say they were too lazy. That is just an > unwarranted assumption. "The Committee did not want to quantify this chance" is sufficient for me to arrive at the opinion that they were too lazy to work out the details. Especially when the rest of the write-up supports the assumption that the committee did no detailed investigation of the play after the lead of a small club. This has not much to do with Herman's write-up, which seems to be fine. 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 Sep 13 03:28:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8CHSCt12466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 03:28:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8CHS6t12462 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 03:28:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.24]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 10:28:14 -0700 Message-ID: <002c01c01cde$a62da2e0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 10:26:49 -0700 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: "Tim West-meads" To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 8:41 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director > In-Reply-To: > DWS wrote: > > > OK, you have assigned a result. > > > > But you cannot. To obtain a result you let the hand be played > > out. > > The TD could however instruct the players to finish the hand could she > not? IMO the play of the hand is not going to affect the matchpoints > won by either side so the UI is not "material" to the result. > > If the TD later discovers that such UI was material she can then > issued an adjusted score under 12c2. > > I have temporarily mislaid my lawbook so I may be even more wrong than > usual:-) > Looking at my lawbook, I agree with Tim. Both sides have "Information from Other Sources," so follow L16B. Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, 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 Wed Sep 13 05:26:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8CJPg312534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 05:25:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gateway.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.76]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8CJPZt12530 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 05:25:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from elnet.msk.ru (h81.50.elnet.msk.ru [195.58.50.81]) by gateway.telekom.ru (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8CJP6621157; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 23:25:06 +0400 (MSD) Message-ID: <39BE820C.5035FD98@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 23:20:45 +0400 From: Vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Marvin L. French" CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director References: <002c01c01cde$a62da2e0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi Marvin:) Nice to see you Vitold "Marvin L. French" wrote: > Looking at my lawbook, I agree with Tim. Both sides have "Information from Other > Sources," so follow L16B. > > Marv (Marvin L. French) > mlfrench@writeme.com > San Diego, CA, 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 13 08:16:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8CMFGT12604 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 08:15:16 +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 e8CMF9t12600 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 08:15:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id SAA01467 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 18:15:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA10395 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 18:15:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 18:15:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200009122215.SAA10395@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastrict Appeal #3 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Look, it looks a very strange and quite possibly wrong decision not > publish the details of how they calculated it, but the committee took > that decision, and the fact that BLML assumes Herman was incompetent or > lying or something in following a Committee taken decision I consider > completely disgraceful. I don't think "BLML" has assumed or even suggested any such thing. I am sure I have not done so, in spite of having been quoted in David's message. (In fact, I agreed explicitly that the writeup follows existing policy.) > Now, tell me: how do you know the decision was wrong, as all BLML > assumes? Yes, it looks wrong to me, but unless you know why they made > this decision, how can you be sure it was wrong? I have not suggested the decision was wrong, although others have done so and given good reasons. The question on the table is whether in future scribes should, with the approval of the AC chairman, add indisputable facts in order to help readers understand a decision. These facts would be labeled as having been added later. Often the entire AC is aware of certain facts, e.g. the conversion from percentages of scores to IMPs or the exact text of a law, that the average player does not know. Even when these facts are relevant to a decision, the AC may not discuss them because everyone in the room knows that everyone else knows them. The proposal is that the scribe tell the readers what the AC knew and found no reason to say because it literally "went without saying." Please tell me why this is a bad idea. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 13 08:21:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8CMLFF12617 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 08:21:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8CML8t12613 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 08:21:09 +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 SAA01594 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 18:21:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA10404 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 18:21:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 18:21:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200009122221.SAA10404@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal #3 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > It amuses me that all that happened here was that > it was seen that views on percentages were close enough > for the committee to cut straight to the effects of them > in terms of imps and decide where to settle. Yes, this was obvious to nearly everyone on BLML but apparently not obvious to many on RGB. Even some very fine players had trouble understanding the decision. > The > fantasies of the world at large were not taken into > account. Exactly so. I've suggested a modest -- perhaps poorly considered -- policy change for the writeups. So far no one has explained why it is a bad idea. > From: Herman De Wael > One member calculated for himself how > much IMPs he would give. Another came up with a similar > answer. Three others agreed on the final IMP correction. > Whyever should a write-up reflect more than this ? Under current policy, apparently it should not. In an ideal world, it seems to me the writeup should educate the readers. Of course in this life we shall never reach the ideal, but perhaps we can come a little closer? Or perhaps not. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 13 08:56:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8CMu4I12647 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 08:56:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8CMtwt12643 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 08:55:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcaui9l.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.73.53]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA11094 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 18:55:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <010601c01d0c$674bae40$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <200009102059.QAA26291@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 18:54:26 -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: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2000 4:59 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director > > From: David J Grabiner > > Hwoever, is there any basis for restoring equity? E-W were headed for > > a top when the director was called; > > Wasn't it Grattan who pointed out that L12C1 says _at least_ 60% for an > artificial avg+? There seems to be a strong case for 100% this time. > I recall Grattan doing so. However, L12C1 also points to L88 for pairs play, which does not leave the upper end open. L88 specifies a minimum of 60% of the matchpoints, or the percentage of matchpoints on boards actually played, whichever is greater, when a contestant is forced to take an artificial score through no fault or choice of his own. This rules out 100%, unless the pair is having a very good game. > Also, why should the NS score be 60%? Yes, TD error has prevented them > from completing the board, but they were already guilty of an > infraction. Surely "each side non-offending" means _from the moment of > the TD error_, not from the beginning of the board. I'm not sure what > score to give, but 40% looks reasonable. > -- The board was not played. Neither side was at fault. Both sides get A+. If the TD was going to give a PP for the failure to alert, I suppose he can tack it on after assigning the score, as there was a procedural violation (failure to alert) while the board was still in play (someone please correct me if I'm wrong here). However, the PP must be separate from the results of the hand, and the TD should have been preparing to assign the same PP for the failure to alert had the hand been played out and N/S received their bottom. If the TD was not going to give a PP prior to the board becoming unplayable, then he absolutely should not give one simply because he doesn't like the fact that N/S are getting too good a score after the adjustment. It's not their fault the TD goofed. Take a look at 12B. It prohibits the TD from adjusting the score because the penalty provided by the Laws is too severe (the A+ being insufficient to N/S who were heading for a top) or too advantageous (the A+ to N/S who were heading for a bottom) to either contestant. Equity (in the form of adjusting for what has occurred prior to the board being deemed unplayable) doesn't enter into this. Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 13 08:58:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8CMwbZ12660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 08:58:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8CMwWt12656 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 08:58:32 +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 IAA05411 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 08:54:06 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 09:54:42 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Unpublished, as far as I know. To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 09:56:06 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 13/09/2000 09:51:46 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows wrote: "Which bid/call has been deemed a BSC? The opening multi or the pass? The multi is not a BSC by definition and the pass I don't believe meets the defintion of a convention. Pass clearly shows willingness to play in the last named denomination nor does this pass seem to meet the definition hidden in L30C - Such a pass does not promise values in another denomination nor does deny them." I agree with Wayne, except for one minor caveat. In Australia (and I suspect many NCBOs) unusual treatments of natural calls - for example negative free bids - are alertable. Therefore, in Canberra, the Pass by the multi opener in response to their pard's 2M should be alerted as "possibly a minimum weak 2 in the other major." In a Bridge World editorial, Edgar Kaplan discussed a case where a player made a similar bad/gambling call - a penalty double of a partscore with a singleton. They got lucky to the tune of +500, but the AC took their score away because they did not like the auction. Even more ridiculous was another case (also discussed by Kaplan in a BW editorial). Pard makes a slow penalty double. You have a hand of great distribution and power, but ethically leave the double in. Virtue is rewarded when you collect a big number. But the AC takes your score away when they rule that Pass is not a logical alternative! But still the AC thought police insist that you must bid rationally instead of luckily. Another recent example (previously discussed on BLML) was the notorious 1 imp PP for failing to correct a misbid. Whatever happened to the aphorism, "A bidding system is an agreement with partner, *not* an undertaking to the opponents"? Best wishes R -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 13 09:19:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8CNISJ12693 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 09:18:28 +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-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 e8CNIDt12680 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 09:18:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13YzJX-000CrB-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 00:18:08 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 16:38:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000911160703.00b222c0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20000911074401.00a95c50@127.0.0.1> <00090711233400.03596@psa836> <4.3.2.7.1.20000911074401.00a95c50@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20000911160703.00b222c0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20000912084317.00b257c0@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20000912084317.00b257c0@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 09:02 PM 9/11/00, David wrote: >> The Laws are quite clear. If you do not let the board be played out >>then no result can be obtained and L12C1 applies. > >I'm prepared to believe that this is correct, but I disagree that it is >"quite clear". I see nothing in L12 that says this explicitly (I see how >it might be inferred, but I can also see how the opposite position might be >inferred as well). The laws in Chapter 10 don't address it either: L82B >says, "To rectify an error in procedure the Director may... award an >adjusted score." L82C says "if no rectification will allow the board to be >scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score". L83 refers to "when he >awards an adjusted score under Law 12". The term used consistently is >"adjusted score", which directs us to L12C. No mention is made of >"artifical score" or "assigned score", which would direct us to L12C1 or >L12C2 respectively. It still looks to me like it's open for >interpretation, but I'm quite prepared to be shown otherwise. What have I >missed? With few exceptions Laws that involve adjusted scores, as you say, refer you to L12C, so it is the wording of L12C that tells you which section to use. I have not got the wording in front of me, but speaking roughly, if a normal result is obtained you go to L12C2: if not to L12C1. This is covered in the first few words of each section. Now I suppose we can have a semantic argument about there being cases not covered by either because the wording is not 100% accurate: we had that with claims and it had to go to the WBFLC for them to say that given an either/or case there are no exceptions. If you want that sort of argument count me out: I am interested in arguments that lead to an understanding of how to rule the game of bridge. So if you let a board be played out, or if it is played out before the TD gets involved, then if you wish to adjust then you assign an adjusted score. If you stop a board, or it cannot be played at all, then you assign an artificial score. The case that started this was one in which play was stopped and not finished. Thus an artificial score is awarded. -- 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 Sep 13 09:19:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8CNIPq12691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 09:18:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8CNIDt12679 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 09:18:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13YzJX-000Cr9-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 00:18:08 +0100 Message-ID: <7aof3ZBASkv5Ewjo@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 15:58:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] I shall tell you my conclusions when I have considered ...... References: <2hdjoVAuZap5EwQm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <39A65D62.849733D7@village.uunet.be> <39BE04F3.2CD7BDC@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <39BE04F3.2CD7BDC@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> Herman De Wael wrote: >> >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 ? >> >> So what happened to all the appeals you were writing up? All mine got >> published! >> >> More to the point, I expect to see my name as *the* success of >> Maastricht: probably the only player in this year's World Championship >> with a 100% record: played two, won two. >> > >I did not see your name in the team rosters, did I ? > >There was one Arthur Nonymous from Liverpool, yes. There seemed some sort of effort by other members of the team to keep it down. -- 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 Sep 13 09:19:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8CNIP012692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 09:18:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8CNIDt12681 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 09:18:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13YzJX-000CrC-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 00:18:09 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 16:58:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Action Replay References: <3.0.6.32.20000912141422.00859100@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000912141422.00859100@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: >>1) Did North act ethically? > >AG : I'm not impressed by the argument that 4H was a lead director ; South >figures to be on lead. Perhaps it was some sort of stripe-tailed ape double >? If North marks his astonishment as to the final contract, he tells the >other players he's got hearts. If South wanted to psyche a double, so that >declarer goes wrong in the play, it would spoil it. And there is always the >possibility that the astonishment creates UI. So, yes, North was right in >not saying anything. The surprise that North might show is not that the double is strange: it is that partner has led during the auction. -- 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 Sep 13 09:25:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8CNP9i12719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 09:25:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8CNOxt12715 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 09:25:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcaui9l.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.73.53]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA04608 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 19:24:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <012901c01d10$75188f80$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000911160703.00b222c0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20000911074401.00a95c50@127.0.0.1> <00090711233400.03596@psa836> <4.3.2.7.1.20000911074401.00a95c50@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20000911160703.00b222c0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20000912084317.00b257c0@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 19:23:28 -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: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 8:51 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director > At 09:02 PM 9/11/00, David wrote: > > >Eric Landau wrote: > > > > >As I see it, the TD *must* apply L12C1 when "no result can be obtained", > > >and *must* apply L12C2 when "a result [has] actually [been] obtained". In > > >this case, neither applies -- no result *has been* obtained, but one *can > > >be*, without overmuch difficulty -- leaving it open to interpretation > > >(presumably the WBFLC's, or, failing that, the SO's, or failing that the > > >TD's) which to apply in this case. I don't know the answer, but do believe > > >that the laws don't provide it, leaving it an open question for BLML (or > > >anyone else who wants to take a shot at it). > > > > The Laws are quite clear. If you do not let the board be played out > >then no result can be obtained and L12C1 applies. > > I'm prepared to believe that this is correct, but I disagree that it is > "quite clear". I see nothing in L12 that says this explicitly (I see how > it might be inferred, but I can also see how the opposite position might be > inferred as well). The laws in Chapter 10 don't address it either: L82B > says, "To rectify an error in procedure the Director may... award an > adjusted score." L82C says "if no rectification will allow the board to be > scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score". L83 refers to "when he > awards an adjusted score under Law 12". L82 is irrelevant. Correct procedure was followed, and the TD did not give an incorrect ruling. L83 simply tells the TD to inform the contestants of their right to appeal. What happened was an accident that produced UI from an "other source". The fact that the TD was the other source is irrelevant to the ruling. As others have pointed out, 16B, not 82, is the applicable law. It's too late for 16B1 or 16B2, so we're left with 16B3, which requires an artificial adjusted score (which is assigned as directed by 12C1). The standard for ruling under 16B is if the UI "could interfere with normal play". Seeing the full hand record could indeed interfere with play on the hand. So, the TD does not have the option to let play continue and must award A+ to both sides. The term used consistently is > "adjusted score", which directs us to L12C. No mention is made of > "artifical score" or "assigned score", which would direct us to L12C1 or > L12C2 respectively. It still looks to me like it's open for > interpretation, but I'm quite prepared to be shown otherwise. What have I > missed? > See above. > > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com > APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 13 11:53:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8D1pmq12781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:51:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f9.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.9]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8D1pgt12777 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:51:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 18:51:34 -0700 Received: from 172.164.225.247 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 01:51:34 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.164.225.247] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastrict Appeal #3 Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 18:51:34 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Sep 2000 01:51:34.0442 (UTC) FILETIME=[256008A0:01C01D25] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Herman De Wael >Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > I could grasp at causes -- hiding something, lazy, going outside >the > > law to make a ruling -- and you can object that no where does it say the >AC > > did such a thing. The omission could have conveniently gotten rid of >that, > > if necessary. > > > >None of the above. One member calculated for himself how >much IMPs he would give. Another came up with a similar >answer. Three others agreed on the final IMP correction. >Whyever should a write-up reflect more than this ? >Yes, we can calculate backwards. >But whyever should a write-up give more than what was >actually said in the discussion. Because that method is different from summing the IMPs the AC members choose and dividing by the cardinality. [snip and reorder] > > That said, I don't think the ruling on this appeal is necessarily > > wrong, but the strong objection to having stenographer-quality, >uncensored > > write-ups of appeals is distasteful. > >And for that matter, why should a write-up give everything >that is said? >One particular appeal took over an hour. The write-up was >no longer than some of the others. > >The write-ups have never been intended to be stenographer >type. I'm under the impression that the objection does not have to do with the impracticality of creating such a write-up nor the time spent reading it. -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 Wed Sep 13 11:58:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8D1wdJ12794 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:58:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f273.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8D1wWt12790 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:58:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 18:58:24 -0700 Received: from 172.164.225.247 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 01:58:24 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.164.225.247] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 18:58:24 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Sep 2000 01:58:24.0531 (UTC) FILETIME=[19CEA630:01C01D26] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Hirsch Davis" >I recall Grattan doing so. However, L12C1 also points to L88 for pairs >play, which does not leave the upper end open. L88 specifies a minimum of >60% of the matchpoints, or the percentage of matchpoints on boards actually >played, whichever is greater, when a contestant is forced to take an >artificial score through no fault or choice of his own. This rules out >100%, unless the pair is having a very good game. Then 'a minimum' becomes superfluous in the sentence, if not completely out-of-place. I don't think that L88 as written can be parsed the way you suggest. -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 Wed Sep 13 15:15:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8D5Ekp12885 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 15:14:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.211.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e8D5Edt12881 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 15:14:40 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 13167 invoked for bounce); 13 Sep 2000 05:14:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.57.13) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 13 Sep 2000 05:14:35 -0000 Message-ID: <000001c01d41$c01d4f80$0d391dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad lead but how bad? Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 07:00:20 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk wrote: > > K2 > Q6 > AQJ652 > K74 > > AQ8753 J6 > 832 1074 > 10 93 > J52 A109863 > > 1094 > AKJ95 > K874 > Q > > Match points, dealer South, EW vul. > > W N E S > --- --- --- 1H > 1S x* 2C 2D > p 4NT p 5S** > p 6D p p > p > > x = negative, 2D would have been NF, 3D would > have shown D and the heart fit > 5S = two key cards (D set as trumps) + side king > > West leads the SA. Then he asks about the meaning > of the 5S bid and gets the answer: "2 aces plus > the side king". He continues spades and declarer > is home. West calls the TD. What information, if any, was provided about the 4NT bid? 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 Sep 13 16:52:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8D6q8D12948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 16:52:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from esebh03nok.ntc.nokia.com (esebh03nok.ntc.nokia.com [131.228.118.244]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8D6q2t12944 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 16:52:02 +1000 (EST) Received: by esebh03nok with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) id ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 09:49:53 +0300 Message-ID: From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Bad lead but how bad? Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 09:49:53 +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 Thomas Dehn [mailto:thomas.dehn@myokay.net] > Sent: 13. September 2000 8:00 > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad lead but how bad? > > > wrote: > > > > K2 > > Q6 > > AQJ652 > > K74 > > > > AQ8753 J6 > > 832 1074 > > 10 93 > > J52 A109863 > > > > 1094 > > AKJ95 > > K874 > > Q > > > > Match points, dealer South, EW vul. > > > > W N E S > > --- --- --- 1H > > 1S x* 2C 2D > > p 4NT p 5S** > > p 6D p p > > p > > > > x = negative, 2D would have been NF, 3D would > > have shown D and the heart fit > > 5S = two key cards (D set as trumps) + side king > > > > West leads the SA. Then he asks about the meaning > > of the 5S bid and gets the answer: "2 aces plus > > the side king". He continues spades and declarer > > is home. West calls the TD. > > What information, if any, was provided about the > 4NT bid? Nobody asked about the 4NT bid. But NS without any doubt played RKCB (they admitted it themselves). 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 Sep 13 19:05:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8D94NA13006 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 19:04:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8D94Ft13002 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 19:04:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-10-214.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.10.214]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA28133 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:04:06 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39BE2BB5.CD37AA51@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 15:12:21 +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] BSC - more References: <3.0.6.32.20000912141818.007a4320@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: > > ... And an argument I forgot to put ahead : how is it possible that the > fact that the multi-ist can make a random pass will affect the definition > of the 2D opening ? It is still "either weak 2 H or S, or ...", so it > cannot change from red to brown, simply from the meaning of ulterior bids, > since it it the *opening* which is red or brown, not the developement. > 'an opening at 2-level which ...' > > A. > That is not necessarily true, Alain. A "system" can be deduced in many ways. Subsequent action that is described as psychic need not be so. However I am merely pointing out your error in argumentation. I too am baffled at this decision (and Grattan's post here is the first I hear of it). BTW, Tell me Grattan, do you want it in between the appeals in a full set ? Let me get back to the original case. It seems to me that 2Di = strong, or weak with six in either major, is a brown sticker opening, except for the fact that it has been specifically allowed. The problem here is what is being allowed: the opening, or the system containing it. The system containing it has among other sequences a correction from hearts to spades. The system this pair apparently plays does not have that sequence (at least not all the time). So certainly the pass on 2He should be alerted. By their decision, the AC have established that the multi that is being exonerated from BSC, is the system, not just the opening. I feel this is a very possible interpretation. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 13 21:00:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DAxRB13060 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 20:59:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8DAxMt13056 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 20:59:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.104.180]) by mta5-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20000913110030.CQZX1619072.mta5-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 23:00:30 +1200 Message-ID: <01e501c01d70$f03f5940$206860cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3.0.6.32.20000912141818.007a4320@pop.ulb.ac.be> <39BE2BB5.CD37AA51@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 22:54:03 +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 From: "Herman De Wael" > > The problem here is what is being allowed: the opening, or > the system containing it. > > The system containing it has among other sequences a > correction from hearts to spades. > > The system this pair apparently plays does not have that > sequence (at least not all the time). So certainly the pass > on 2He should be alerted. > > By their decision, the AC have established that the multi > that is being exonerated from BSC, is the system, not just > the opening. > > I feel this is a very possible interpretation. > Except that 'convention' is defined in the laws. And the regulation makers have chosen to use that previously defined term. 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 Wed Sep 13 21:38:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DBbYT13085 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 21:37:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8DBbTt13081 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 21:37:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id za247207 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 21:36:40 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-222-160.tmns.net.au ([203.54.222.160]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-Renaissance-MailRouter V2.9b 13/7114110); 13 Sep 2000 21:36:39 Message-ID: <005701c01d1a$d2c2a260$a0de36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] Compulsory Pause over Preempt Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:37:40 +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 My brother, who lives in a countryside town in Australia, was recently on an Appeals Committee. A woman held: xx AQ108xx AKx Qx At favourable vul, she dealt and opened 1H, LHO overcalled 4S, partner paused for an estimated 30 seconds then passed, RHO passed and she bid 5H. After 5H proved to be a good save, the Director was called and adjusted the result to 4S making. She appealed, on the grounds that her partnership had "Compulsory Pause over Preempt" written on the CC. Please note that there are no Stop Cards (nor Skip Bid warnings) in Australia, and that in a few isolated parts of the country, it is not uncommon to see this phrase on a CC. (Has anyone overseas ever heard of this practice?) My brother's AC took only a few seconds to uphold the Director's ruling, due to the length of the pause and the nature of the 5H bidder's hand. It took much longer to discuss what to say to the experienced player about the phrase on her card. Someone considered an approach of "the phrase is meaningless because it doesn't say how long the pause is" while someone else thought they should tell her that the Laws don't allow the phrase to be written on a CC (possibly mentioning that the Laws have been changed several times, to reduce the hurt felt by a woman who'd been writing it on her CC for decades). Discussion ensued about whether the practice is illegal? Or impractical? Is a pair allowed to maintain two even tempos depending on the circumstances (i.e. a bit like playing their own personal Stop Cards even when the SO doesn't use Stop Cards)? Your thoughts please? Also, how long would an acceptable "meaningless" pause over a 4S overcall of 1H be, assuming no Stop Cards? 1 second? 3 seconds? 5 seconds? Or is there no quantifiable standard? 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 Sep 13 21:57:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DBvIn13109 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 21:57:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8DBvBt13105 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 21:57:12 +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 e8DC7XQ05614 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 08:07:34 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000913074006.00b2ccf0@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, 13 Sep 2000 07:58:07 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Interpretation and requested change of words In-Reply-To: <005101c01c81$bcc722e0$375408c3@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 01:35 AM 9/12/00, Grattan wrote: >+=+ The WBFLC has minuted a request for copyright holders >when next printing the laws to make a change in the footnote to >Laws 69,70,71. In future this is to read: > "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71 'normal' includes >play that would be careless or inferior, but not irrational, for >the class of player involved." > The current footnote is interpreted as though it were >so worded. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ This makes it a lot clearer that the terms "careless or inferior" and "irrational" are set in opposition, i.e. there is a "line" between them. It also makes it clear that the placement of that line depends on the class of player involved, although it (presumably deliberately) offers no guidance as to where to draw it. Since we have terms in opposition, we must be able to relate them to a universe of discourse. In this case, we can call that "bad plays", i.e. a bad play is either careless or inferior, or irrational, but not both. The only sensible way we can draw that line is quantitatively. We can therefore restate the sentence using quantitative modifiers over the universe of discourse. So the sentence can be reworded as (feel free to use your own adjectives), "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71 'normal' includes play that would be somewhat bad, but not very bad, for the class of player involved." If that is what the WBFLC intends, fine, although a bit of judicious rewording (perhaps making the inherently quantitative distinction a bit more obvious) might make it even clearer. But is it? Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 13 22:22:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DCLbH13173 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 22:21:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8DCLUt13169 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 22:21:31 +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 e8DCLQj09386 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 08:21:26 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000913075856.00b2c590@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, 13 Sep 2000 08:22:27 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] did insufficient to protect his own back ? In-Reply-To: <005201c01c81$bdaa7e00$375408c3@dodona> References: <002d01c017ff$db3d4960$abdd36cb@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 02:16 AM 9/12/00, Grattan wrote: >+=+ Extract from the WBF Alerting regulations: > " Players who participate in WBF events are >expected to protect themselves to a large extent. >They are also expected to observe the spirit of >the Laws as well as the letter. Full disclosure is >vital. " > This is nothing new. It applied as long ago >as 1985 (as an appeals committee pointed out >to a player who did not enquire about one call >in SaoPaulo) and no doubt well before that. So the WBF, like the ACBL, has a "players must protect themselves" rule. But in both cases, this is a rule that is part of the alerting procedure; it says that players must make reasonable efforts to protect themselves from their opponents' mistakes in following the alert procedure. What it means in real life is that you cannot expect redress if you blindly infer the meaning of an opponent's call from his partner's alert, or failure to alert, when you had reason (how good a reason you need is the subject for another thread) to suspect that the opponents' irregularity was nothing more than incorrect use of the alert procedure. IOW, you won't get an automatic finding of MI just because your opponents screw up an alert; if you have reason to think that's what might be going on, you are expected to protect yourself. IMO, this is as it should be. So how do you protect yourself? You inquire about the meaning of the auction. The key point is that the "players must protect themselves" rule applies to alerts. There is no corresponding rule which applies to explanations; your obligation is confined to protecting yourself from *mis-alerts*. Once you have done that by asking for an explanation, you have discharged your obligation. There is no obligation to protect yourself further from *mis-explanations*; an incorrect explanation *is* "automatically" MI. Unfortunately, this does not appear to be generally understood. 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 Sep 13 22:55:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DCtm013223 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 22:55:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8DCtgt13219 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 22:55:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.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 e8DCtbJ24197 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 08:55:37 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000913084945.00aae670@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, 13 Sep 2000 08:56:38 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director In-Reply-To: <012901c01d10$75188f80$0200000a@mindspring.com> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000911160703.00b222c0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20000911074401.00a95c50@127.0.0.1> <00090711233400.03596@psa836> <4.3.2.7.1.20000911074401.00a95c50@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20000911160703.00b222c0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20000912084317.00b257c0@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:23 PM 9/12/00, Hirsch wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" > >What happened was an accident that produced UI from an "other source". The >fact that the TD was the other source is irrelevant to the ruling. As others >have pointed out, 16B, not 82, is the applicable law. It's too late for >16B1 or 16B2, so we're left with 16B3, which requires an artificial adjusted >score (which is assigned as directed by 12C1). > >The standard for ruling under 16B is if the UI "could interfere with normal >play". Seeing the full hand record could indeed interfere with play on the >hand. So, the TD does not have the option to let play continue and must >award A+ to both sides. > >The term used consistently is > > "adjusted score", which directs us to L12C. No mention is made of > > "artifical score" or "assigned score", which would direct us to L12C1 or > > L12C2 respectively. It still looks to me like it's open for > > interpretation, but I'm quite prepared to be shown otherwise. What have I > > missed? > >See above. Indeed, what I missed was the explicit reference to "artifical adjusted score" in L16B3. Combined with L12B, it would seem that the TD has no choice but to award A+/A+, as David and others have been saying all along. In this case the result couldn't get much further from "equity" relative to the position the pairs were in when the TD's error occurred, but the ruling is of a purely mechanical nature, barring the possibility of the AC's modifying it under L12C3 (whether to do so would be appropriate is for another thread). Thank you, Hirsch. 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 Sep 13 22:56:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DCuDg13236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 22:56:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from osiris.watchic.net (mail@osiris.watchic.net [208.162.108.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8DCu6t13231 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 22:56:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208.167.55.10.stnd.fuwa.net (default.9oakhill.com) [208.167.55.10] by osiris.watchic.net with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #1 (Debian)) id 13ZCBn-0001vS-00; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 09:03:00 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000913084827.00ad4bc0@watchic.net> X-Sender: timg@watchic.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 08:53:58 -0400 To: "Bridge Laws" From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: [BLML] Compulsory Pause over Preempt In-Reply-To: <005701c01d1a$d2c2a260$a0de36cb@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 10:37 AM 9/13/00 +1000, Peter Gill wrote: >(Has anyone overseas ever heard >of this practice?) Yes. About 10-12 years ago, before skip bid warnings and stop cards came into universal use in ACBL, I saw some conventions cards which were marked "we always pause after preempts" or some such. >Also, how long would an acceptable "meaningless" pause over >a 4S overcall of 1H be, assuming no Stop Cards? 1 second? >3 seconds? 5 seconds? Or is there no quantifiable standard? My understanding of the stop card (or a skip bid warning) is that they are courtesies designed to remind the next player to pause appropriately as the Laws would dictate anyway. It's not the stop card that dictates a pause, but rather the Laws. Anyway, common practice over here is to silently count to 10, which probably means a 7-10 second "meaningless" pause. 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 Wed Sep 13 22:57:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DCvpt13248 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 22:57:51 +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 e8DCvit13244 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 22:57:45 +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 OAA14132; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 14:58:25 +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 OAA06505; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 14:57:19 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000913150719.00858300@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 15:07:19 +0200 To: "Hirsch Davis" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director In-Reply-To: <010601c01d0c$674bae40$0200000a@mindspring.com> References: <200009102059.QAA26291@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 18:54 12/09/00 -0400, you wrote: >Take a look at 12B. It prohibits the TD from adjusting the score because >the penalty provided by the Laws is too severe (the A+ being insufficient to >N/S who were heading for a top) or too advantageous (the A+ to N/S who were >heading for a bottom) to either contestant. AG : granted, but this is not a case for penalty, so said text is irrelevant. Another matter is whether a pair that was heading for a top before the problem occured can be deprived of it. In some cases, the answer is 'no'. For example, in teams, if table #2 plays a fouled board, the extraordinary result of table #1 may still be taken into account. >Equity (in the form of adjusting for what has occurred prior to the board >being deemed unplayable) doesn't enter into this. It does, in the case mentioned above. Regards, 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 Sep 13 23:09:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DD9Zq13279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 23:09:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8DD9Pt13269 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 23:09:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-184.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.184]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA22410 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 15:09:21 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39BF4962.9BF74FFC@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:31:14 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastrict Appeal #3 References: <200009122215.SAA10395@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: > > > The question on the table is whether in future scribes should, with the > approval of the AC chairman, add indisputable facts in order to help > readers understand a decision. These facts would be labeled as having > been added later. Often the entire AC is aware of certain facts, e.g. > the conversion from percentages of scores to IMPs or the exact text of > a law, that the average player does not know. Even when these facts > are relevant to a decision, the AC may not discuss them because > everyone in the room knows that everyone else knows them. The proposal > is that the scribe tell the readers what the AC knew and found no > reason to say because it literally "went without saying." > > Please tell me why this is a bad idea. It is not a bad idea. And I have done this in the past. But in this case, it simply is not true. Oh yes, we could add a sentence that 7IMPs is equivalent to 82%, but that is not relevant. Since any % between (I have not calculated exactly) 14 and 19 (but not 20) would yield the correction of 4IMPs, there is a problem of stating exactly what happened. I don't know why my colleagues agreed to 4IMPs. I know why I agreed to it, and I don't believe I should be telling you. The fact is that we all agreed on 4 IMPs. Whyever should there be more in the write-up than 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 Sep 13 23:09:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DD9aM13280 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 23:09:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8DD9Rt13270 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 23:09:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-184.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.184]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA22430 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 15:09:23 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39BF4AC7.5F103C@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:37:11 +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] Maastricht Appeal #3 References: <000d01c01ba5$a3be85e0$5c5408c3@dodona> <008601c01c90$8ff2db60$375408c3@dodona> <19Ms+ABSajv5EwRj@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: > > > We are publishing appeals. I had assumed that there would be a good > reason to hide part of the reasoning, not that the AC could not be > bothered. I have been defending this AC and its scribe and I shall be > very disappointed if the reason is [as some have alleged] that the AC > could not be bothered to quantify. > Why would there be a good reason to hide anything ? The truth is that the AC did not quantify probabilities, but preferred to express its correction into IMPs. There seems to me no obligation for any AC to quantify. I don't know why any individual (apart from me) agreed to the correction value, but I know that they did. Be dissapointed if you want. But tell me if you would have insisted on quantification if all that is said is "4 IMPs" and everyone (including you, who has quantified) agrees. Some have said "the bar closes in 20 minutes". That was true. -- 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 Sep 13 23:09:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DD9ir13284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 23:09:44 +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 e8DD9Xt13278 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 23:09:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-184.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.184]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA22448 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 15:09:26 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39BF4C98.672D3BC6@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:44:56 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000911160703.00b222c0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20000911074401.00a95c50@127.0.0.1> <00090711233400.03596@psa836> <4.3.2.7.1.20000911074401.00a95c50@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20000911160703.00b222c0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20000912084317.00b257c0@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 David Stevenson wrote: > > > With few exceptions Laws that involve adjusted scores, as you say, > refer you to L12C, so it is the wording of L12C that tells you which > section to use. I have not got the wording in front of me, but speaking > roughly, if a normal result is obtained you go to L12C2: if not to > L12C1. This is covered in the first few words of each section. Now I > suppose we can have a semantic argument about there being cases not > covered by either because the wording is not 100% accurate: we had that > with claims and it had to go to the WBFLC for them to say that given an > either/or case there are no exceptions. If you want that sort of > argument count me out: I am interested in arguments that lead to an > understanding of how to rule the game of bridge. > > So if you let a board be played out, or if it is played out before the > TD gets involved, then if you wish to adjust then you assign an adjusted > score. If you stop a board, or it cannot be played at all, then you > assign an artificial score. > > The case that started this was one in which play was stopped and not > finished. Thus an artificial score is awarded. > Fully agreed. However, perhaps this is an area for which a Law change might be useful. Grattan ? Have you taken note ? Play has been declared impossible after some part of the board has been played. Should this not be 12C2(3) and not 12C1. Leave 12C1 for boards not yet started. -- 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 Sep 13 23:23:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DDNR813322 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 23:23:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8DDNKt13318 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 23:23:20 +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 e8DDNFQ02954; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 14:23:16 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id e8DDNEd19584; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 14:23:14 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 13:23:14 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 OAA14353; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 14:23:13 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id OAA05430; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 14:23:13 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 14:23:13 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200009131323.OAA05430@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, elandau@cais.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Indeed, what I missed was the explicit reference to "artifical adjusted > score" in L16B3. Combined with L12B, it would seem that the TD has no > choice but to award A+/A+, as David and others have been saying all > along. In this case the result couldn't get much further from "equity" > relative to the position the pairs were in when the TD's error occurred, > but the ruling is of a purely mechanical nature, barring the possibility of > the AC's modifying it under L12C3 (whether to do so would be appropriate is > for another thread). Thank you, Hirsch. > > > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com There is "no possibility of the AC's modifying it under L12C3" Law12C3. Powers of Appeals Committee Unless Zonal Organisations specify otherwise, an appeals committee may vary an assigned adjusted score in order to achieve equity. L12C3 only applies to "assigned adjusted score", i.e. L12C2 rulings. 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 Sep 13 23:46:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DDka213341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 23:46:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8DDkTt13337 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 23:46:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-28.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.28]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA04709 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 15:46:12 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39BF7EA0.60A535C9@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 15:18:24 +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] BSC - more References: <3.0.6.32.20000912141818.007a4320@pop.ulb.ac.be> <39BE2BB5.CD37AA51@village.uunet.be> <01e501c01d70$f03f5940$206860cb@laptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows wrote: > > From: "Herman De Wael" > > > > > > By their decision, the AC have established that the multi > > that is being exonerated from BSC, is the system, not just > > the opening. > > > > I feel this is a very possible interpretation. > > > > Except that 'convention' is defined in the laws. And the regulation makers > have chosen to use that previously defined term. > Sorry Wayne, not true. A convention is a set of things, including responses. Multi is a convention, and it includes certain standard responses. The AC have interpreted that the convention this pair is playing is not "Multi". So I do not see how your intervention counters my argument. Mind you, I am only interpreting after the facts, trying to find a frame under which the AC decision can be put. It is of course a pity that the AC (or it's scribe) did not see this problem for themselves and put it themselves into a frame. -- 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 Sep 14 00:29:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DESwN13371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 00:28:58 +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 e8DESpt13367 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 00:28:52 +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 KAA18296 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:28:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA16743 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:28:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:28:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200009131428.KAA16743@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Hirsch Davis" > L88 specifies a minimum of > 60% of the matchpoints, or the percentage of matchpoints on boards actually > played, whichever is greater, when a contestant is forced to take an > artificial score through no fault or choice of his own. This rules out > 100%, unless the pair is having a very good game. The consensus is against the proposal to award more than 60% or the session percentage, but I don't think L88 mandates it. Take a closer look. For a pair whose session percentage is _less_ than 60%, L88 specifies a _minimum_ score of 60%. It does not specify a maximum. (Logic suggests the maximum should not exceed 100%, but I don't see that written.) For a pair whose session percentage is _more_ than 60%, the last clause of the sentence is ambiguous. Read by itself, it says to award _exactly_ the percentage earned on boards actually played. However, one could read the 'minimum' in the preceding clause being implicitly contained in the last clause. This makes more sense, as otherwise L88 would give permission to award a higher score on a board to a contestant who scored lower in the rest of the session. If the intent of L88 were to specify the award exactly, there would be no need for the word 'minimum' to appear at all. (Grattan: a note for 2007?) While I am not necessarily advocating awards of greater than 60% for avg+ (except when the session score is greater), I don't think a RA who decided to allow it would be contravening L88. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 14 00:34:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DEYcf13383 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 00:34:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8DEYRt13379 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 00:34:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id KAA18567 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:34:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA16753 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:34:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:34:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200009131434.KAA16753@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Hirsch Davis" > What happened was an accident that produced UI from an "other source". The > fact that the TD was the other source is irrelevant to the ruling. As others > have pointed out, 16B, not 82, is the applicable law. It's too late for > 16B1 or 16B2, so we're left with 16B3, which requires an artificial adjusted > score (which is assigned as directed by 12C1). This makes sense. The problem has been remarked before: L16B is based on the tacit assumption that the UI became available before play started. When the UI becomes available _during_ play, an artificial score may fail to restore equity. I hope Grattan has already made a note to have the LC review the matter when the time comes. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 14 00:38:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DEckB13395 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 00:38:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8DEcct13391 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 00:38:39 +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 KAA04205 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:38:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA073105913; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:38:33 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:38:30 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: [BLML] Law 75 (ME or MB) Mime-Version: 1.0 From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline ;Creation-Date="Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:38:30 -0400" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id e8DEcgt13392 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all, The auction was: N E 2D! 3D end 2D! alerted as Flannery but S opened a "weak 2D". 3D is natural on Flannery. E had 5 good Ds... W having 5=5=2=1 decided to P with a good hand, beeing sure Ss and Hs was behind him. E-W lost an easy game to 4H. Without the alert, the most probable auction would be: N E S W 2D P P 2S P 2N P 4H (end) Call at the table, the TD looked at CCs. On N's CC it is written that 2D is weak. On S's CC, Flannery is clearly there. New partnership. N said he was sure the agreement was "weak 2D". S was convinced they play Flannery. Law 75, example 2: "the Director is presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken bid, in the absence of evidence of the contrary." Does this sentence clearly applies here so that the ruling should be made according to Mistaken explanation (ME) ? E-W have a flat 4H and I think more details on board have no importance. 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 Thu Sep 14 01:00:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DF0AC13443 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 01:00:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8DF00t13435 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 01:00:04 +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 KAA19929 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:59:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA16795 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:59:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:59:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200009131459.KAA16795@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastrict Appeal #3 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > But in this case, it simply is not true. My specific proposal was: (Scribe's note added after the hearing: the committee's decision is mathematically equivalent to 82% of 6D= and 18% of 6D-1.) What is not true about that? (Apart from perhaps substituting 9/11 and 2/11 for the percentages.) > The fact is that we all agreed on 4 IMPs. Whyever > should there be more in the write-up than that ? If that isn't obvious from this whole thread (and even more so from the comments on RGB), I cannot hope to explain it to you. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 14 01:04:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DF3uW13455 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 01:03:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium ([194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8DF3ot13451 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 01:03:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from actinium ([194.75.226.69] helo=btinternet.com) by protactinium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13ZE4g-000411-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 16:03:46 +0100 From: dburn@btinternet.com Reply-to: dburn@btinternet.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 16:03:46 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director Message-id: <39bf9752.1ee8.0@btinternet.com> X-User-Info: 194.222.4.103 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk There is a part of this that puzzles me. Consider this scenario: South arrives in four hearts doubled, an absurd contract. An excited kibitzer says loudly to his friend, so that all the players can hear him: "Look at that! He's in four hearts doubled, and the hearts are 6-0 so he's going to go five down!" There seems, if I have understood recent messages correctly, to be a consensus that further play of the board is now impossible per L16C3, and that the Director should award an artificial adjusted score under Law 12C1 of (presumably) average plus to both sides. Before exploring further this ridiculous notion, I would like to confirm that it is indeed what Eric, Hirsch and others now believe. David Burn London, England > >> >> Indeed, what I missed was the explicit reference to "artifical adjusted >> score" in L16B3. Combined with L12B, it would seem that the TD has no >> choice but to award A+/A+, as David and others have been saying all >> along. In this case the result couldn't get much further from "equity" >> relative to the position the pairs were in when the TD's error occurred, >> but the ruling is of a purely mechanical nature, barring the possibility of >> the AC's modifying it under L12C3 (whether to do so would be appropriate is >> for another thread). Thank you, Hirsch. >> >> >> Eric Landau elandau@cais.com > >There is "no possibility of the AC's modifying it under L12C3" > > Law12C3. Powers of Appeals Committee > > Unless Zonal Organisations specify otherwise, an appeals committee > may vary an assigned adjusted score in order to achieve equity. > >L12C3 only applies to "assigned adjusted score", i.e. L12C2 rulings. > >Robin > >-- >Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk >CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 >National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 >Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk >-- >======================================= ================================= >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge- cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 14 01:10:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DFAdI13467 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 01:10:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8DFAXt13463 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 01:10:34 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e8DFAh312329 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:10:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200009131510.e8DFAh312329@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ME or MB) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:10:42 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA" at Sep 13, 2000 10:38:30 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 Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA writes: > > Call at the table, the TD looked at CCs. On N's CC it is > written that 2D is weak. On S's CC, Flannery is clearly there. > New partnership. N said he was sure the agreement > was "weak 2D". S was convinced they play Flannery. > In fact they have no agreement and the differing convention cards are evidence of this. Mistaken explanation. -- 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 Sep 14 01:14:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DFEAP13489 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 01:14:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8DFE2t13482 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 01:14:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.0.ap (resu)) id RAA21179; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 17:14:44 +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 RAA09937; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 17:13:37 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000913172338.008569c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 17:23:38 +0200 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] did insufficient to protect his own back ? In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20000913075856.00b2c590@127.0.0.1> References: <005201c01c81$bdaa7e00$375408c3@dodona> <002d01c017ff$db3d4960$abdd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >So how do you protect yourself? You inquire about the meaning of the >auction. The key point is that the "players must protect themselves" rule >applies to alerts. There is no corresponding rule which applies to >explanations; your obligation is confined to protecting yourself from >*mis-alerts*. Once you have done that by asking for an explanation, you >have discharged your obligation. There is no obligation to protect >yourself further from *mis-explanations*; an incorrect explanation *is* >"automatically" MI. Unfortunately, this does not appear to be generally >understood. AG : I would like to throw in here a word for one of my idiosyncrasies : you didn't do enough to protect yourself if you asked a biased question, and received an answer to that question only. For example : South : 2 Spades North : Alert West : Is it weak ? North : indeed If it happens that 2 Spades is Dutch 2-suited, or even weak with *clubs*, the fault isn't North's ; after all, he answered West's question faithfully. Am I carrying it too far ? 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 Sep 14 01:14:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DFEEi13490 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 01:14:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8DFDut13480 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 01:13:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id LAA20747 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:13:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA16834 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:13:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:13:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200009131513.LAA16834@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Compulsory Pause over Preempt X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Peter Gill" > Is a pair allowed to maintain two even tempos > depending on the circumstances (i.e. a bit like playing their own > personal Stop Cards even when the SO doesn't use Stop Cards)? I don't know anything in the Laws to forbid it, although I suppose you could worry about the meaning of "steady tempo" in L73D1. I take the words to mean "tempo not depending on the cards held," not "equal pause before every call regardless of the auction." RA's can certainly make their own regulations on this matter, requiring mandatory pauses or forbidding "personal stop cards" or anything similar. I don't see how it is playable not to expect and allow for at least a modest pause after preempts, but the ACBL has allowed stops and pauses for a lot longer than the 10-12 years mentioned by another poster, so I have no experience playing without them. (The _present_ regulation may be only that old, but stops have been permitted quite a lot longer.) > Also, how long would an acceptable "meaningless" pause over > a 4S overcall of 1H be, assuming no Stop Cards? 1 second? > 3 seconds? 5 seconds? Or is there no quantifiable standard? As far as I know, all jurisdictions that mandate stop cards use 10 s as the standard length of pause. (I expect to hear about all the exceptions within minutes of posting this message!) So in the absence of further explanation, 10 s would be my expectation. In practice around here, where a pause is mandatory, anything between 5 and 15 s would be unlikely to cause a problem. A pause of 30 s would be considered to give significant UI. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 14 01:59:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DFwCN13530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 01:58:12 +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 (calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8DFw5t13526 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 01:58:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA16269 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 12:00:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200009131600.MAA16269@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Redress after damage from proper procedure? Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 12:00:32 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Some background for our non-ACBL readers, from the Alert Procedure: ALERTABLE BIDS ABOVE THE LEVEL OF 3 NT STARTING WITH OPENERS REBID [but not Alertable P, X, or XX...] Once the auction has progressed to the point that opener has had the opportunity to make a rebid, no conventional calls at the four level or higher should be Alerted until the auction is over. These DELAYED ALERTS are REQUIRED to be made by the DECLARING side before the opening lead is made. The DEFENDERS are REQUIRED to Alert declarer AFTER the OPENING LEAD but BEFORE declarer makes a play from dummy. Alerting before the dummy is spread is best. [last para in bold, emphasis in the original] (from http://www.acbl.org/info/charts/alertproc.htm#delayed ) The auction proceeds: N E S W 1S-p-2D -p 4H-p-4NT-p 6D-AP Before the opening lead, declarer Alerts the 4H call as Kickback (RKC for diamonds). If East had known this, he would have doubled for a heart lead. The Director is called, but as there was no misinformation - everything was done according to correct procedure - there was nothing the director could do. Now, West has enough UI that he's somewhat constrained against leading a heart, it isn't his natural lead anyway, and 6D makes on the lead. Delayed Alerts are put in place because immediate Alerts in these auctions are more likely to help the Alerting side than the Alerted side (especially in potential Kickback auctions). But this time the passing side got burned. Is there anything that can or should be done? Or is this also the rub of the green, or a place where one needs to protect oneself? Other questions: Note that at the tiem of the Delayed Alert, the auction period isn't over (the opening lead hasn't been faced). Does the defending side have L21B1 rights? However, if the auction had gone, say, 1H -p -2H-2S 4NT-5D-5H-p 6H -AP and, after the opening lead, Defending side Alerts the 5D call as fit-showing? Now the auction period is over. Are we giving different sides in the same quandry different rights? 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 Sep 14 02:10:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DGAaQ13547 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 02:10:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8DGAUt13543 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 02:10:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.24]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 09:10:43 -0700 Message-ID: <011b01c01d9c$fdcc4420$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <005701c01d1a$d2c2a260$a0de36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Compulsory Pause over Preempt Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 09:09:18 -0700 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: > Is a pair allowed to maintain two even tempos > depending on the circumstances (i.e. a bit like playing their own > personal Stop Cards even when the SO doesn't use Stop Cards)? > Your thoughts please? > Don't have the answer, since over here we have "mandatory" pauses (a generally unenforced regulation) over skip bids, Stop Card or no Stop Card. A thought is that (where not a requirement) those who always hesitate over a skip bid might do better to pre-Alert the practice rather than merely note it on the cc. This brings to mind the memory that Eddie Kantar and Marshall Miles at one time (many years ago, before Stop Cards or Skip Bid Warnings) would pre-Alert before removing cards from the board: "We use random hesitations during the bidding and play." That seemed like a good idea to me at the time, but it never caught on, or was discouraged by authorities, or didn't work as well as intended, because I never came across it again. Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, 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 Thu Sep 14 02:21:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DGKsG13566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 02:20:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8DGKmt13562 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 02:20:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis8.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.8]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.1999.06.13.00.20) with ESMTP id <0G0U00JH32QGQG@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 18:20:42 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 18:20:38 +0200 From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director In-reply-to: <39bf9752.1ee8.0@btinternet.com> X-Sender: bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de To: dburn@btinternet.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <4.3.2.7.0.20000913175729.00af2c40@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 16:03 13.09.2000 +0100, dburn@btinternet.com wrote: >There is a part of this that puzzles me. Consider this >scenario: > >South arrives in four hearts doubled, an absurd contract. >An excited kibitzer says loudly to his friend, so that all >the players can hear him: "Look at that! He's in four >hearts doubled, and the hearts are 6-0 so he's going to >go five down!" > >There seems, if I have understood recent messages >correctly, to be a consensus that further play of the >board is now impossible per L16C3, and that the >Director should award an artificial adjusted score under >Law 12C1 of (presumably) average plus to both sides. > >Before exploring further this ridiculous notion, I would >like to confirm that it is indeed what Eric, Hirsch and >others now believe. The more I think about it, I dislike this sort of ruling. But I cannot see how to avoiud this sort of ruling... :-( As a studied lawyer I have two theoretical ways of escaping the problem here (I wouldnt use them, but the WBFLC should think about this): a) using L82C analogous. As others mentioned already this law is not direct usable here. Especially way there no wrong decision from TD. BUT: If the TD can even change a decision he already made, he should be able to handle both sides as an innocent side as well, if he made a mistake during the decision finding, which makes the board unplayable. I think the fault of the TD is even more severe here than in the case which is handled in L82C. By using this way, the TD would be able to give both sides the maximum number of tricks (eg. 2D XX - 3 for opps and d XX = for player; just an example!!!) This handling would manage the original case, but not the case of david burn, where a kibitz made the damage. (maybe there is the possibility to use 11B analogous...) b) Using L12A1 analogous. There is an innocent player and there is no satisfying compensation. But there was no infraction of law from opponents (except you see the TD as an opponent; many players would possibly agree with this ;-))) This rule might be even possible to use analogous with the kibitz from david (burn). So here you can stop shaking your head and smile ;-) 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 Thu Sep 14 02:38:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DGchA13580 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 02:38:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8DGcat13576 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 02:38:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA17712 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 12:41:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200009131641.MAA17712@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] did insufficient to protect his own back ? Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <3.0.6.32.20000913172338.008569c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <005201c01c81$bdaa7e00$375408c3@dodona> <002d01c017ff$db3d4960$abdd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <3.0.6.32.20000913172338.008569c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 12:41:04 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 13 September 2000 at 17:23, alain gottcheiner wrote: > >AG : I would like to throw in here a word for one of my idiosyncrasies : >you didn't do enough to protect yourself if you asked a biased question, >and received an answer to that question only. >For example : >South : 2 Spades >North : Alert >West : Is it weak ? >North : indeed >If it happens that 2 Spades is Dutch 2-suited, or even weak with *clubs*, >the fault isn't North's ; after all, he answered West's question faithfully. >Am I carrying it too far ? In the ACBL, at least, yes. Again, from the Alert Procedure: |The opponents need not ask exactly the "right" question. | |Any request for information should be the trigger. Opponents need only |indicate the desire for information - all relevant disclosure should be |given automatically. Also, W has done something mildly incorrect: |The proper way to ask for information is "please explain". But even if W asks you how you got to the game today (or even if he just looks at you funny, which seems to happen a lot around here), he is entitled to your full agreement about the call. As a side note, the "protect yourself" requirement in the ACBL is as follows: |Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents |have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect |themselves. Under these regulations, you'd be hard-pressed to convince me that anyone "by expertise" should even guess that a 2H bid was anything but "standard, weak" if not Alerted; and unless it is common as ditch-water in their country, or they had played against people of the non-Alerting side's country frequently enough to know that it is that common there, or this bid had come up in previous meetings against this pair, "experience" doesn't count, either[1]. But the WBF regulation is different, and may be less lenient to the players wanting "protection." Michael. [1] As a fer'instance, I know enough about the systems common in my area to check the CC on every auction that goes 1H-p-1NT-p; 2C-p-2H, Alerted or not. Can't imagine the average native of the land of the light 2/1s expecting that anything's unusual about this auction, unless there was a wakeup Alert to tell you that they're playing 2/1 GF with the corresponding Forcing 1NT response. "Oi, mate, yous got 3 'arts. And 'es only got 2 clubs. Wot's goin' on 'ere, then?"[2] [2] As Michael proves his lack of experience with Londoner accents. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 14 03:26:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DHPwk13646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 03:25:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8DHPqt13642 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 03:25:53 +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 RL53KSLK; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 12:25:48 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000913172338.008569c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000913075856.00b2c590@127.0.0.1> <005201c01c81$bdaa7e00$375408c3@dodona> <002d01c017ff$db3d4960$abdd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 12:29:15 -0500 To: alain gottcheiner , From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: [BLML] did insufficient to protect his own back ? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >> >>So how do you protect yourself? You inquire about the meaning of the >>auction. The key point is that the "players must protect themselves" rule >>applies to alerts. There is no corresponding rule which applies to >>explanations; your obligation is confined to protecting yourself from >>*mis-alerts*. Once you have done that by asking for an explanation, you >>have discharged your obligation. There is no obligation to protect >>yourself further from *mis-explanations*; an incorrect explanation *is* >>"automatically" MI. Unfortunately, this does not appear to be generally >>understood. > > >AG : I would like to throw in here a word for one of my idiosyncrasies : >you didn't do enough to protect yourself if you asked a biased question, >and received an answer to that question only. >For example : >South : 2 Spades >North : Alert >West : Is it weak ? >North : indeed >If it happens that 2 Spades is Dutch 2-suited, or even weak with *clubs*, >the fault isn't North's ; after all, he answered West's question faithfully. >Am I carrying it too far ? > > A. A poorly-worded question is no excuse for a limited answer. Otherwise 75C makes no sense. (If poorly-worded questions do not get a full answer under 75C, what Law requires any answer at all? "Is it weak?" "Your question is no good!" or "Mind your own business!") 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 Sep 14 03:38:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DHbni13659 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 03:37:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8DHbgt13655 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 03:37:43 +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 NAA19589 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 13:40:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200009131740.NAA19589@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal #3 Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <39BF4AC7.5F103C@village.uunet.be> References: <000d01c01ba5$a3be85e0$5c5408c3@dodona> <008601c01c90$8ff2db60$375408c3@dodona> <19Ms+ABSajv5EwRj@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <39BF4AC7.5F103C@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 13:40:05 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 13 September 2000 at 11:37, Herman De Wael wrote: >The truth is that the AC did not quantify probabilities, but >preferred to express its correction into IMPs. >There seems to me no obligation for any AC to quantify. >I don't know why any individual (apart from me) agreed to >the correction value, but I know that they did. > I know that this is both legal and complete - because I know the Law, and I know you. I will admit that I guessed this from the writeup, too. I do believe that when someone as good at Bridge, good for Bridge, and influential as Fred Gitleman doesn't understand a ruling, that there is a case that the average Joe (Player, Director, Spectator, AC Member) won't either. I also realize that Mr. Gitleman's lack of understanding is in large part due to the isolationist attitude of his and my ZO[1], and that readers from more enlightened parts of the world didn't have the problem. But I will lobby for publishing of what is required for interested people to understand the process, and for critical people to review and judge it, and for future ACs to value its correctness and use it as a precedent. If that requires a change in the AC process, or a change in the CoP, or a change in the Scribe's duties, or a change in the Laws (or a change in the Law decision making, say removal of "zonal options"), then that will be what I will lobby for. And if I have trod on anyone's toes in the process, I would like to be made aware of that, so that I may first apologize, and second minimize repeats. > >Some have said "the bar closes in 20 minutes". That was true. > That was I, and my complete thought was: keep them in the dark about how the judgement was arrived at, and the most cynical of the world will assume that the fact that the bar closes in 20 minutes was more important than proper jurisprudence to the members of the AC. I am not that cynical[2], especially of any AC that contains any of the Maastricht Scribes. But I didn't just pull that line out of my ear - I've heard the accusation made about ACs here more than once. And the bar *always* closes in 20 minutes on ACs - unless they're held the next day, in which case the bar won't open for 5 hours. Good ACs don't take that into account when producing their rulings - and the number of not-Good ACs in major events is going down. Congratulations to all involved with that process. Michael. [1] Cue story from Lille where Major USAian Woman gets nailed by L61B. [2] And I don't believe anyone is accusing me of it, either. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 14 03:46:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DHkSq13676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 03:46:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8DHkOt13672 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 03:46:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot21.domain3.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ra790859 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 03:46:26 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-211-138.tmns.net.au ([203.54.211.138]) by mail3.bigpond.com (Claudes-Tiny-MailRouter V2.9b 5/7805287); 14 Sep 2000 03:46:25 Message-ID: <024201c01d4e$71c71160$25d336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Fw: [BLML] Board spoiled by director Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 16:47:11 +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: >However, perhaps this is an area for which a Law change >might be useful. > >Grattan ? Have you taken note ? > >Play has been declared impossible after some part of the >board has been played. Should this not be 12C2(3) and not >12C1. >Leave 12C1 for boards not yet started. I think Herman's post is worth repeating in case someone missed it. Or perhaps give the Director an option for boards already started? I recall our National Butler ten years ago where one table through no fault of their own had to take averages for the first 9 boards of their 16 board match**. The Director pointed out that he was bound by Law to award each pair "plus 27 imps", and an appeal by the field at large (!) was unsuccessful. If the Laws are to be tampered with, this problem also needs to be resolved. Peter Gill Australia. ** I can't remember why - something really weird like that the set of boards on their table had all the vulnerabilities and dealers wrong. Someone told the player who noticed after nine boards that he should have waited until the end of the match in order to guarantee that both NS and EW had max (25VP) wins. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 14 03:56:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DHuou13689 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 03:56:50 +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 e8DHuit13685 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 03:56:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA26970; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:56:39 -0700 Message-Id: <200009131756.KAA26970@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] did insufficient to protect his own back ? In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 13 Sep 2000 12:41:04 PDT." <200009131641.MAA17712@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:56:40 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: > In the ACBL, at least, yes. Again, from the Alert Procedure: > > |The opponents need not ask exactly the "right" question. > | > |Any request for information should be the trigger. Opponents need only > |indicate the desire for information - all relevant disclosure should be > |given automatically. > > Also, W has done something mildly incorrect: > > |The proper way to ask for information is "please explain". > > But even if W asks you how you got to the game today (or even if he > just looks at you funny, which seems to happen a lot around here), > he is entitled to your full agreement about the call. I realize you're probably being half-facetious here, or at least 42.3% facetious, but I think this last is wrong. Although a player doesn't have to ask exactly the "right" question, I think it's a requirement that the player has to ask *some* question that indicates a desire to have the opponent explain the meaning of the bid. "How did you get to the game today?" doesn't qualify; nor does "Could you please move your coffee cup off your convention card so I can take a look at it?" And neither does a funny look. In fact, I get rather peeved at opponents who explain their partner's bid without waiting for partner or me to ask them; perhaps some of them have interpreted certain facial expressions as being equivalent to a question, but it isn't so. (*Some* facial expressions are clearly questions, though. Please don't ask me to describe which ones.) -- 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 Sep 14 03:58:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DHvu013701 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 03:57:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8DHvmt13697 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 03:57:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DB6hM01469 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:06:43 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:00:46 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200009102059.QAA26291@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.6.32.20000913150719.00858300@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000913150719.00858300@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00091311064304.00173@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, alain gottcheiner wrote: > > AG : granted, but this is not a case for penalty, so said text is > irrelevant. Another matter is whether a pair that was heading for a top > before the problem occured can be deprived of it. In some cases, the answer > is 'no'. For example, in teams, if table #2 plays a fouled board, the > extraordinary result of table #1 may still be taken into account. I haven't seen any rule for this; there is the standard procedure for scoring fouled boards. Table 1 gets 60% both ways according to the official fouled board formula. Likewise, if Table 1 has the best N-S score of three scores and the board is fouled at Table 4, the N_S pair at Table 1 gets an automatic 70% even if it had a sure top. The difference between the fouled board situation and the board spoiled by the director is that the fouled board gives a bridge result with no matchpoint scale, while the spoiled board gives a matchpoints scale with no bridge result. It's easier to determine a bridge result than a matchpoint scale. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 14 04:09:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DI8xi13717 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 04:08:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8DI8qt13713 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 04:08:53 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e8DI92c19386 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 14:09:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200009131809.e8DI92c19386@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Compulsory Pause over Preempt To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 14:09:02 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <005701c01d1a$d2c2a260$a0de36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> from "Peter Gill" at Sep 13, 2000 10:37:40 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill writes: > > My brother, who lives in a countryside town in Australia, > was recently on an Appeals Committee. > A woman held: > > xx > AQ108xx > AKx > Qx > > At favourable vul, she dealt and opened 1H, LHO > overcalled 4S, partner paused for an estimated > 30 seconds then passed, RHO passed and she bid 5H. > > After 5H proved to be a good save, the Director was > called and adjusted the result to 4S making. She appealed, > on the grounds that her partnership had "Compulsory > Pause over Preempt" written on the CC. Please note that > there are no Stop Cards (nor Skip Bid warnings) in Australia, > and that in a few isolated parts of the country, it is not uncommon > to see this phrase on a CC. (Has anyone overseas ever heard > of this practice?) > > My brother's AC took only a few seconds to uphold the Director's > ruling, due to the length of the pause and the nature of the 5H > bidder's hand. Seems correct. > It took much longer to discuss what to say to the experienced > player about the phrase on her card. Someone considered an > approach of "the phrase is meaningless because it doesn't say > how long the pause is" I agree. I'd have no problem with something like "5 second pause over all preempts" -- Provided of course they stick to it. > while someone else thought they should tell her that the Laws don't > allow the phrase to be written on a CC (possibly mentioning that the > Laws have been changed several times, to reduce the hurt felt by a > woman who'd been writing it on her CC for decades). > Discussion ensued about whether the practice is illegal? What would you quote to say the practice was illegal? OK an SO can make it so but I doubt that it's against the Laws. > Or impractical? I see nothing impractical. Perhaps not desired -- that's a judgement call. A lot of people hate the whole stop/skip bid system, but a consistent approach cuts down on a lot of UI. > Is a pair allowed to maintain two even tempos > depending on the circumstances (i.e. a bit like playing their own > personal Stop Cards even when the SO doesn't use Stop Cards)? Honrestly I can't see why anyone would have a problem with this -- provided they actually follow it consistently. > Your thoughts please? > Also, how long would an acceptable "meaningless" pause over > a 4S overcall of 1H be, assuming no Stop Cards? 1 second? > 3 seconds? 5 seconds? Or is there no quantifiable standard? People are completely hopeless at estimating time -- even as short as 5 seconds. Having said that, 5 seconds seems right. Long enough that the pause is basically unreadable. -- 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 Sep 14 05:10:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DJAGi13765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 05:10:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8DJABt13761 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 05:10:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot21.domain3.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id va792059 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 05:02:03 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-211-138.tmns.net.au ([203.54.211.138]) by mail3.bigpond.com (Claudes-Kaleidoscopic-MailRouter V2.9b 5/7811682); 14 Sep 2000 05:02:03 Message-ID: <039401c01d59$02350d60$25d336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 18:02:48 +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 David Burn wrote: >There is a part of this that puzzles me. Consider this >scenario: > >South arrives in four hearts doubled, an absurd contract. >An excited kibitzer says loudly to his friend, so that all >the players can hear him: "Look at that! He's in four >hearts doubled, and the hearts are 6-0 so he's going to >go five down!" > >There seems, if I have understood recent messages >correctly, to be a consensus that further play of the >board is now impossible per L16C3, and that the >Director should award an artificial adjusted score under >Law 12C1 of (presumably) average plus to both sides. > >Before exploring further this ridiculous notion..... Ridiculous? What happens in practice? About 15 years ago in our Nationals, IIRC with declarer in the tank, a kibitzer said to a defender something like: "I wonder if declarer knows how to play a criss-cross squeeze?". Declarer heard, called the Director, and explained that his line of play would be affected. IIRC (not very likely as I wasn't involved in the case), play was cancelled, and the AC ruling was: - the kibitzer was suspended from playing for the next three matches. Much mirth greeted this decision, as he was now free to wreak more havoc with his unique kibitzing style. - A+ to both sides (3 imps, no more, no less, as per Law). - Since declarer would have picked up a big swing but for the kibitzer's intervention due to his teammates being plus 800, IIRC the AC decided that an imaginative illegal (?) transfer of about 10 imps from the kibitzer's team to declarer's team was equitable. So that's how it was done if the kibitzer is from another team ... Your puzzle looks too hard for me, but I don't chicken out easily .... I'd give A+ of 100% (under Law 88) to EW (having checked that they really were heading for an outright top) and perforce 60% to NS, leaving the kibitzer with a balancing score of minus 40% (of one board) to be carried forward to his next game. I wonder how many Laws I have broken? 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 Sep 14 05:59:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DJxj913805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 05:59:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8DJxdt13801 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 05:59:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.24]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 12:59:47 -0700 Message-ID: <016701c01dbc$fdccf9e0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <005201c01c81$bdaa7e00$375408c3@dodona> <002d01c017ff$db3d4960$abdd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <3.0.6.32.20000913172338.008569c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <200009131641.MAA17712@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] did insufficient to protect his own back ? Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 12:50:10 -0700 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 From: "Michael Farebrother" > > Under these [ACBL] regulations, you'd be hard-pressed to convince me that > anyone "by expertise" should even guess that a 2H bid was anything but > "standard, weak" if not Alerted; One of the oddities of the ACBL's Alert Procedure is that non-conventional two-level openings of any strength are not Alertable, except that a natural 2C opening is Alertable if non-forcing. You are expected to look at the opposing cc when an opponent opens with two of a suit, so there is no need for guesswork. Another strange one is that a natural 2D, 2H, or 2S signoff in response to a strong notrump opening, although very unusual, is not Alertable. The failure to Announce a transfer to a major or Alert another convention says it is natural, but if it turns out to be a conventional bid a good player will not get redress for assuming it was natural. Of course a really strong player will have checked the opposing cc and have no need to make inquiries. If s/he is a pro playing with a client, however, s/he will often ask the unnecessary (and unethical) "pro question" to make sure client knows what's happening. A problem that often arises in my experience is that a weak partner doesn't look at the opposing cc and we get burned by a failure to Alert. If I complain to the TD, he says that I could have asked. No I couldn't. Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, 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 Thu Sep 14 06:14:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DKDmN13829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 06:13:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8DKDft13825 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 06:13:42 +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 MAA10805 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 12:13:37 -0800 Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 12:13:37 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director In-Reply-To: <010601c01d0c$674bae40$0200000a@mindspring.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Both Grattan and I mentioned this -- not surprisingly Grattan's opinion is the more memorable and influential of the two. :) I -- and I think he -- were in fact reading both 12C1 and 88. As I read 88, it does NOT rule out 100%... it says " a minimum of [blah blah]", that is, A+ cannot be less than 60%, and A+ cannot be less than one's session score, but it can be anything else. If the law were intended to be as you (and almost everyone else) thinks it is, the words "a minimum of" could be stricken, and L88 could just say that A+ IS 60% or session score whichever is better. If the laws commission intends it to mean that, I would like to see those three words taken out to make it perfectly clear what A+ is. I, of course, would prefer to see the law left as it stands so that an equitable score can be assigned in the rare cases when the UI emerges after a side is already on track for a near top. On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Hirsch Davis wrote: > > I recall Grattan doing so. However, L12C1 also points to L88 for pairs > play, which does not leave the upper end open. L88 specifies a minimum of > 60% of the matchpoints, or the percentage of matchpoints on boards actually > played, whichever is greater, when a contestant is forced to take an > artificial score through no fault or choice of his own. This rules out > 100%, unless the pair is having a very good game. > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 14 06:29:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DKT3413842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 06:29:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8DKSwt13838 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 06:28:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.101.67]) by mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20000913202913.EWHV641613.mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 08:29:13 +1200 Message-ID: <027601c01dc0$815dac20$206860cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3.0.6.32.20000912141818.007a4320@pop.ulb.ac.be> <39BE2BB5.CD37AA51@village.uunet.be> <01e501c01d70$f03f5940$206860cb@laptop> <39BF7EA0.60A535C9@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 08:23:38 +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: "Herman De Wael" > Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > From: "Herman De Wael" > > > > > > > > > By their decision, the AC have established that the multi > > > that is being exonerated from BSC, is the system, not just > > > the opening. > > > > > > I feel this is a very possible interpretation. > > > > > > > Except that 'convention' is defined in the laws. And the regulation makers > > have chosen to use that previously defined term. > > > > Sorry Wayne, not true. > > A convention is a set of things, including responses. > Sorry Herman, not true. Convention - 1. 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. 2. Defender's play that serves to convey a meaning by agreement rather than inference. By definition a convention is a call. That call may have a set of responses that may also be conventional. > Multi is a convention, and it includes certain standard > responses. No Multi is a convention, and it has certain standard responses but I don't see why a pair should be obliged to use those standard responses. Why not encourage innovation? > > The AC have interpreted that the convention this pair is > playing is not "Multi". > Yes apparently they have but I am not convinced that they are entitled to do that. 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 Sep 14 07:14:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DLE0P13871 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 07:14:00 +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 e8DLDnt13867 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 07:13:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.101] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13ZJqi-0008wv-00; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 22:13:45 +0100 Message-ID: <000901c01dc7$9f225a60$655408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Rostand it ain't Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 22:13:58 +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: ; Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 10:48 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Rostand it ain't > Enjoyed reading this. Thanks for the reference. BUT, I hope no one thinks > that the TD ruling was not to accept the double squeeze. We did, the AC had > trouble with that - not "us." Kojak +=+ I do not think four-fifths of the AC had any problem with it either. The one interesting reaction that I did experience was in the Executive Council (when Ton and I were reporting in our respective functions). A view was expressed that a double squeeze was a basis of claim that had questions attached. ~ 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 Sep 14 07:23:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DLNKU13883 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 07:23:20 +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 e8DLNEt13879 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 07:23:15 +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 RAA08031 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 17:23:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA17253 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 17:23:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 17:23:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200009132123.RAA17253@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Rostand it ain't X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > A view was > expressed that a double squeeze was a basis of claim > that had questions attached. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ As I recall the hand, there were in fact two possible double squeezes. In context, I could guess which one was intended, and I wouldn't myself have contested the claim, but I can see how others might disagree. (Have I missed a line that allows both squeezes to operate?) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 14 07:24:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DLOK813895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 07:24:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8DLOEt13891 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 07:24:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.117] (d185fca75.rochester.rr.com [24.95.202.117]) by mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA09837 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 17:16:12 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200009131809.e8DI92c19386@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> References: <200009131809.e8DI92c19386@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 17:15:18 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Compulsory Pause over Preempt Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >People are completely hopeless at estimating time -- even as short as 5 >seconds. Some time ago, playing with my regular partner, my RHO made a skip bid late in the auction. IIRC, I had already passed at least twice (and so had partner.) There was no skip bid warning. I duly paused for "about ten seconds," whereupon LHO indignantly called the Director. "Unmistakeable hesitation!!" she cries. TD asks around the table. RHO agrees with her partner (surprise, surprise), I say "I'm supposed to pause "about ten seconds", and that's what I did." Partner now says "It was more like fifteen seconds." Later, in the car, we talked^H^H^H^H^H^H argued about this. "I'm a nurse," she says, "and I've been doing it for 30 years. I *know* what ten seconds is." "Okay," says I, pulling out my stop watch, "count me ten seconds." She did, only it was *twelve* seconds. That ended the discussion. For several days, as I recall. :-) No, I don't remember how the TD ruled. :-) I time myself from time to time, just for grins. My "ten seconds" usually comes out between 8 and 12. 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 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOb/we72UW3au93vOEQJpHgCeMTY0pIPkNv7eVGdHBSQIulmFlBMAoOYW EgeR3senF5Nds1/kpX7bSodO =ftNb -----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 Sep 14 07:30:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DLUkC13908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 07:30:46 +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 (mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.120]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8DLUet13904 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 07:30:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.117] (d185fca75.rochester.rr.com [24.95.202.117]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA12303 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 17:26:09 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <39BE2BB5.CD37AA51@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.6.32.20000912141818.007a4320@pop.ulb.ac.be> <39BE2BB5.CD37AA51@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 17:29:46 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 3:12 PM +0200 9/12/00, Herman De Wael wrote: >By their decision, the AC have established that the multi >that is being exonerated from BSC, is the system, not just >the opening. > >I feel this is a very possible interpretation. Maybe, but... what do the conditions of contest say? If they say "a 2D opening showing a weak hand with 6 cards in one of the majors, or (some strong meaning(s)) is allowed," then it seems to me they do *not* say that the responses to 2D are exonerated. So one would have to look at the BSC regs to see if they are exonerated or not. I don't think the AC can define convention responses as "brown sticker" or "not brown sticker" in the way they may have done here. I think they have to look at the regs and the CoC. And it seems to me that if those are unclear, then the fault does not lie with the putative offending side in the case, but with the tournament organization. Perhaps it's the WBF who should get penalized. :-) 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 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOb/x/r2UW3au93vOEQJP3ACgq7/a4avGtt9mDSvoiGJVFy8wh9UAoNFI iuAMSs6TWDzJEQimY79rsTx3 =GsVt -----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 Sep 14 07:33:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DLWwb13920 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 07:32:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8DLWpt13916 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 07:32:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivet5p.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.116.185]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA05116 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 17:32:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000913173232.013b1e04@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 17:32:32 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] Compulsory Pause over Preempt In-Reply-To: <005701c01d1a$d2c2a260$a0de36cb@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 10:37 AM 9/13/2000 +1000, Peter wrote: >My brother's AC took only a few seconds to uphold the Director's >ruling, due to the length of the pause and the nature of the 5H >bidder's hand. > >It took much longer to discuss what to say to the experienced >player about the phrase on her card. Someone considered an >approach of "the phrase is meaningless because it doesn't say >how long the pause is" while someone else thought they should >tell her that the Laws don't allow the phrase to be written on a CC >(possibly mentioning that the Laws have been changed several >times, to reduce the hurt felt by a woman who'd been writing it on >her CC for decades). > >Discussion ensued about whether the practice is illegal? >Or impractical? Is a pair allowed to maintain two even tempos >depending on the circumstances (i.e. a bit like playing their own >personal Stop Cards even when the SO doesn't use Stop Cards)? >Your thoughts please? The practice is not illegal, at least not according to the Laws. Its practicality and import are less obvious. I think that the general standard is that the length of a pause should be evaluated in the context of the auction (i.e., without reference to the actual hand), and that in particular, a pause of about 8 to 10 seconds would be considered "in tempo" in this situation, with or without a note to that effect on the convention card. In fact, a call _without_ pause after a skip bid is potentially as informative as an excessively long pause. Unless the SO has issued specific standards against the use of such pauses, then their failure to adopt skip bid warnings is essentially irrelevant. 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 Thu Sep 14 09:01:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DN0ht13990 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 09:00:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8DN0at13986 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 09:00:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcauipv.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.75.63]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA22460 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 19:00:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <002a01c01dd6$3640d800$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <39bf9752.1ee8.0@btinternet.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 18:59:03 -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: To: Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 11:03 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director > There is a part of this that puzzles me. Consider this > scenario: > > South arrives in four hearts doubled, an absurd contract. > An excited kibitzer says loudly to his friend, so that all > the players can hear him: "Look at that! He's in four > hearts doubled, and the hearts are 6-0 so he's going to > go five down!" > > There seems, if I have understood recent messages > correctly, to be a consensus that further play of the > board is now impossible per L16C3, and that the > Director should award an artificial adjusted score under > Law 12C1 of (presumably) average plus to both sides. > It's 16B3, and the TD must award the artificial score, not "should", if the conditions for applying 16B3 exist. > Before exploring further this ridiculous notion, I would > like to confirm that it is indeed what Eric, Hirsch and > others now believe. > > David Burn > London, England > I cannot speak for others. The ruling under L16 is clear. Your analysis is missing a step, in that the TD must first decide if the UI "could interfere with normal play". If the TD feels that the hand can procede normally despite the UI, play procedes. Once the TD has determined that the UI could influence play, the TD has no choice in the matter. If play cannot continue with a rearrangement of players (16B1) or a substitute player (16B2), the TD must award an artificial adjusted score (16B3). In the case of a neutral kibitzer, it would be A+ for both sides. (The kibitzer would also be removed from the playing area). If the kibitzer was affiliated in some way with the side that was about to escape a bottom, further investigation would ensue. There is no mechanism in this ruling for the TD to attempt to reach some sort of equity. If the UI could influence play, play is stopped and an artificial adjusted score is awarded, regardless of any advantage either side has accrued prior to the UI. Note also that I'm not commenting on whether or not I like this ruling. Regards, Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 14 09:46:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DNjrM14031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 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 oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8DNjgt14025 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 09:45:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.102] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13ZMDe-000CJR-00; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 00:45:35 +0100 Message-ID: <000701c01ddc$d52ed240$665608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" Cc: "bridge-laws" References: <000d01c01ba5$a3be85e0$5c5408c3@dodona><008601c01c90$8ff2db60$375408c3@dodona> <19Ms+ABSajv5EwRj@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal #3 Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 00:40:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 2:58 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal #3 > We are publishing appeals. I had assumed that there would be a good > reason to hide part of the reasoning, not that the AC could not be > bothered. I have been defending this AC and its scribe and I shall be > very disappointed if the reason is [as some have alleged] that the AC > could not be bothered to quantify. > +=+ There is no requirement laid upon the AC, neither in the CoP nor in the WBF's TAC policies, to quantify percentages. The CoP says 'to form a view as to what is an equitable outcome in the score, and to implement that outcome'. The WBF policy guideline as enunciated in M'cht had nothing in it about stating, nor for that matter calculating, percentages. The main thrust was to establish, when appropriate, an equitable score to be awarded to both sides and to consider separately the question of a penalty for any offence. You are making the mistake of thinking that the production of weighted scores via the percentages route with which we are familiar, and which has been encouraged by - amongst others - you, Herman and myself, is a procedure laid down in some regulatory or policy document as 'the way to do it'. This is not so. On the contrary, virtually the last act of the Lausanne Group was to confirm that no one method of applying 12C3 is set above another. ACs et al are free to settle equity by any method they choose when having recourse to 12C3. The AC in the case made no mistake; it used its powers within the policy laid down; the argument you make is not about error but about what may be desirable. ~ 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 Sep 14 09:46:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DNjh914024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 09:45:43 +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 e8DNjUt14009 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 09:45:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.102] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13ZMDW-000CJR-00; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 00:45:27 +0100 Message-ID: <000201c01ddc$d0457f40$665608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , References: <39be4c17.531.0@btinternet.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal #3 Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 23:41:26 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 4:30 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal #3 >. However, if we are to accuse it of imprecision, > let us at least be as precise as we can be in bringing the > charges. > +=+ That we "invented the Revolution, but don't know how to run it"? +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 14 09:46:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DNjjL14026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 09:45:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8DNjWt14011 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 09:45:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.102] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13ZMDZ-000CJR-00; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 00:45:29 +0100 Message-ID: <000301c01ddc$d1c78b60$665608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000913074006.00b2ccf0@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Interpretation and requested change of words Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 23:59:38 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 12:58 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Interpretation and requested change of words > At 01:35 AM 9/12/00, Grattan wrote: > > >+=+ The WBFLC has minuted a request for copyright holders > >when next printing the laws to make a change in the footnote to > >Laws 69,70,71. In future this is to read: > > "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71 'normal' includes > >play that would be careless or inferior, but not irrational, for > >the class of player involved." > > The current footnote is interpreted as though it were > >so worded. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > This makes it a lot clearer that the terms "careless or inferior" and > "irrational" are set in opposition, i.e. there is a "line" between > them. It also makes it clear that the placement of that line depends on > the class of player involved, although it (presumably deliberately) offers > no guidance as to where to draw it. > +=+ The judgement of the Director/AC determines which side of the line an action sits. The revision leaves that decision in those hands. ~ 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 Sep 14 09:46:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DNjmV14030 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 09:45:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8DNjZt14016 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 09:45:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.102] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13ZMDc-000CJR-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 00:45:32 +0100 Message-ID: <000501c01ddc$d369a2a0$665608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <39BCDE25.50C04F34@village.uunet.be> <00091116100403.05790@psa836> Subject: Re: Effect of a penalty in KO play (was Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal 20) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 00:32:49 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 4:55 PM Subject: Effect of a penalty in KO play (was Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal 20) > > While is true that team B gets a bonus from team A's penalty in the KO, > this is a secondary effect. When team A is penalized, some other team > in the event has to move up. If the penalty drops team A from first > place in either the KO or swiss, the team that would have finished > second must take first place, whether or not this is team B. > -- +=+ For what it is worth I would apply the 3 imp penalty so that the match score is altered from 129-124 to 126-124. And I would do it at the end of the session in which the penalty is incurred. A personal view. ~ 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 Sep 14 09:47:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DNkuM14061 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 09:46:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8DNknt14057 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 09:46:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcauipv.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.75.63]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA08872 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 19:46:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <007d01c01ddc$aae02200$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <200009131428.KAA16743@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 19:45:15 -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: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 10:28 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director > > From: "Hirsch Davis" > > L88 specifies a minimum of > > 60% of the matchpoints, or the percentage of matchpoints on boards actually > > played, whichever is greater, when a contestant is forced to take an > > artificial score through no fault or choice of his own. This rules out > > 100%, unless the pair is having a very good game. > > The consensus is against the proposal to award more than 60% or the > session percentage, but I don't think L88 mandates it. Take a closer > look. > > For a pair whose session percentage is _less_ than 60%, L88 specifies a > _minimum_ score of 60%. It does not specify a maximum. (Logic suggests > the maximum should not exceed 100%, but I don't see that written.) > > For a pair whose session percentage is _more_ than 60%, the last clause > of the sentence is ambiguous. Read by itself, it says to award > _exactly_ the percentage earned on boards actually played. However, > one could read the 'minimum' in the preceding clause being implicitly > contained in the last clause. This makes more sense, as otherwise L88 > would give permission to award a higher score on a board to a > contestant who scored lower in the rest of the session. > > If the intent of L88 were to specify the award exactly, there would be > no need for the word 'minimum' to appear at all. (Grattan: a note for > 2007?) > > While I am not necessarily advocating awards of greater than 60% for > avg+ (except when the session score is greater), I don't think a RA who > decided to allow it would be contravening L88. > You and others who have pointed this out are of course grammatically correct. My only excuse is that I was raised speaking American, and only speak English as a second language. However, as a mitigating circumstance, I believe David Stevenson reported that the LC determined at Maastricht that a TD may not award greater than 60% unless a player's session average is higher. Regards, Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 14 09:49:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8DNn7s14073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 09:49:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8DNn1t14069 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 09:49:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.215] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13ZMGt-000CLZ-00; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 00:48:56 +0100 Message-ID: <000f01c01ddd$4cc60e40$665608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200009132123.RAA17253@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Rostand it ain't Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 00:49:11 +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: Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 10:23 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Rostand it ain't > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > A view was > > expressed that a double squeeze was a basis of claim > > that had questions attached. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > As I recall the hand, there were in fact two possible double squeezes. > In context, I could guess which one was intended, and I wouldn't myself > have contested the claim, but I can see how others might disagree. > (Have I missed a line that allows both squeezes to operate?) > -- +=+ Those consulted all agreed, as I understand, that the claim was well founded as between expert players. ~ 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 Sep 14 11:13:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8E1CbN14132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:12:37 +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-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 e8E1CNt14112 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:12:24 +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 13ZNZb-000FAu-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 02:12:20 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 13:23:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal #3 References: <200009122221.SAA10404@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200009122221.SAA10404@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: >Under current policy, apparently it should not. In an ideal world, >it seems to me the writeup should educate the readers. Of course >in this life we shall never reach the ideal, but perhaps we can >come a little closer? Or perhaps not. Hmm. We were not that far away were we? Or are you assuming that because #3 did not explain that the others did not? Anyone who read this list and RGB could be pardoned for thinking that appeals decisions from Maastricht did not show the details of how weighted scores were arrived at. This is, of course, not the case. One such decision did not. I think, Steve, if you are going to attack "current policy" you might at least refer to more than one isolated appeal. -- 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 Sep 14 11:13:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8E1CeI14133 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:12:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8E1CNt14111 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:12:24 +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 13ZNZa-000FAt-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 02:12:19 +0100 Message-ID: <0pSsbnAqC3v5EwQk@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 13:18:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal #3 References: <39be4c17.531.0@btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <39be4c17.531.0@btinternet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DB wrote: >DWS wrote: > >>>> In my view, quantifying L12C3 decisions *is* >normal WBF procedure. > >>>+=+ It is getting to be common, but it is not >standard. > >> I said normal, not standard. I believe quantifying >L12C3 decisions is normal but not standard. > >normal, adj: according to rule, not deviating from the >standard [Chambers] > >Though the difference between "normal" and "standard" >in this context may be obvious to you, David, I am >afraid that at least I among the rest of us am in need >of further clarification. I am sorry: I tend to use popular terminology. By normal I meant that people would do so on most occasions: by standard I mean that if people do not do it they are assumed to have made a mistake. In other words, I do not know of a rule that ACs have to provide all the detail but I do believe it is understood that they will do so unless there is a good reason not to. >> I have been defending this AC and its scribe and I >shall be very disappointed if the reason is [as some >have alleged] that the AC could not be bothered to >quantify. > >But it has quantified. That is, it has "fixed or expressed >the quantity of" the penalty it awarded [op cit]. What it >seems to have failed to do is to show cause why the >quantity it has fixed or expressed is an appropriate >quantity. However, if we are to accuse it of imprecision, >let us at least be as precise as we can be in bringing the >charges. Ok, my wording was imprecise, but I bet you and the rest of BLML knew what I meant by quantifying in this context. -- 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 Sep 14 11:13:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8E1Ci114135 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:12:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8E1CUt14128 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:12:31 +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 13ZNZb-000FAw-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 02:12:21 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 13:34:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director 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: > >> OK, you have assigned a result. >> >> But you cannot. To obtain a result you let the hand be played >> out. > >The TD could however instruct the players to finish the hand could she >not? IMO the play of the hand is not going to affect the matchpoints >won by either side so the UI is not "material" to the result. > >If the TD later discovers that such UI was material she can then >issued an adjusted score under 12c2. L16B says that an adjusted score should be given "forthwith". In fact, many TDs do what you say but I believe we decided it was not legal. >I have temporarily mislaid my lawbook so I may be even more wrong than >usual:-) Perhaps you left it at http://blakjak.com/lws_lnks.htm -- 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 Sep 14 11:13:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8E1Cfw14134 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 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-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 e8E1CPt14114 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:12:26 +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 13ZNZb-000FAx-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 02:12:22 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 13:35:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director References: <002c01c01cde$a62da2e0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <002c01c01cde$a62da2e0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: [s] Hi Marv. Nice to see you. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 14 11:13:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8E1Cmv14136 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:12:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8E1COt14113 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:12:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13ZNZb-000FAv-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 02:12:20 +0100 Message-ID: <$ZvuHsAdL3v5Ewzb@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 13:28:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000911160703.00b222c0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20000911074401.00a95c50@127.0.0.1> <00090711233400.03596@psa836> <4.3.2.7.1.20000911074401.00a95c50@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20000911160703.00b222c0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20000912084317.00b257c0@127.0.0.1> 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: >Eric Landau wrote: >>At 09:02 PM 9/11/00, David wrote: > >>> The Laws are quite clear. If you do not let the board be played out >>>then no result can be obtained and L12C1 applies. >> >>I'm prepared to believe that this is correct, but I disagree that it is >>"quite clear". I see nothing in L12 that says this explicitly (I see how >>it might be inferred, but I can also see how the opposite position might be >>inferred as well). The laws in Chapter 10 don't address it either: L82B >>says, "To rectify an error in procedure the Director may... award an >>adjusted score." L82C says "if no rectification will allow the board to be >>scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score". L83 refers to "when he >>awards an adjusted score under Law 12". The term used consistently is >>"adjusted score", which directs us to L12C. No mention is made of >>"artifical score" or "assigned score", which would direct us to L12C1 or >>L12C2 respectively. It still looks to me like it's open for >>interpretation, but I'm quite prepared to be shown otherwise. What have I >>missed? > > With few exceptions Laws that involve adjusted scores, as you say, >refer you to L12C, so it is the wording of L12C that tells you which >section to use. I have not got the wording in front of me, but speaking >roughly, if a normal result is obtained you go to L12C2: if not to >L12C1. This is covered in the first few words of each section. Now I >suppose we can have a semantic argument about there being cases not >covered by either because the wording is not 100% accurate: we had that >with claims and it had to go to the WBFLC for them to say that given an >either/or case there are no exceptions. If you want that sort of >argument count me out: I am interested in arguments that lead to an >understanding of how to rule the game of bridge. > > So if you let a board be played out, or if it is played out before the >TD gets involved, then if you wish to adjust then you assign an adjusted >score. If you stop a board, or it cannot be played at all, then you >assign an artificial score. Totally brain-dead. However, I do wish the Laws could avoid three long words beginning with a. I should have written: So if you let a board be played out, or if it is played out before the TD gets involved, then if you wish to adjust then you award an assigned score. If you stop a board, or it cannot be played at all, then you award an artificial score. Sorry 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 Thu Sep 14 12:07:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8E26oP14190 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:06:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8E26et14182 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:06:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13ZOQ6-000BCQ-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 03:06:35 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 01:36:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director References: <039401c01d59$02350d60$25d336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <039401c01d59$02350d60$25d336cb@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 <039401c01d59$02350d60$25d336cb@gillp.bigpond.com>, Peter Gill writes snip > >I'd give A+ of 100% (under Law 88) to EW (having checked that >they really were heading for an outright top) and perforce 60% >to NS, leaving the kibitzer with a balancing score of minus 40% >(of one board) to be carried forward to his next game. I wonder >how many Laws I have broken? You forgot to fine him a beer. Law 90A. > >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/ -- 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 Sep 14 12:07:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8E26nb14189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:06:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8E26et14181 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:06:41 +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 13ZOQ6-000BCR-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 03:06:35 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 01:41:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] did insufficient to protect his own back ? References: <005201c01c81$bdaa7e00$375408c3@dodona> <002d01c017ff$db3d4960$abdd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000913075856.00b2c590@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20000913172338.008569c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000913172338.008569c0@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 In article <3.0.6.32.20000913172338.008569c0@pop.ulb.ac.be>, alain gottcheiner writes >> >>So how do you protect yourself? You inquire about the meaning of the >>auction. The key point is that the "players must protect themselves" rule >>applies to alerts. There is no corresponding rule which applies to >>explanations; your obligation is confined to protecting yourself from >>*mis-alerts*. Once you have done that by asking for an explanation, you >>have discharged your obligation. There is no obligation to protect >>yourself further from *mis-explanations*; an incorrect explanation *is* >>"automatically" MI. Unfortunately, this does not appear to be generally >>understood. > > >AG : I would like to throw in here a word for one of my idiosyncrasies : >you didn't do enough to protect yourself if you asked a biased question, >and received an answer to that question only. >For example : >South : 2 Spades >North : Alert >West : Is it weak ? >North : indeed >If it happens that 2 Spades is Dutch 2-suited, or even weak with *clubs*, >the fault isn't North's ; after all, he answered West's question faithfully. >Am I carrying it too far ? > > A. > I'd go berserk if you did that. You are *intentionally* misleading your opponents, and you knew it. I'd issue a PP just to start with and would probably wonder audibly and publicly about your parentage, your sister's morals and your daughter's reputation :))))) 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 Sep 14 12:15:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8E2FPc14219 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:15:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8E2FHt14213 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:15:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.10] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13ZOYT-000DYt-00; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 03:15:14 +0100 Message-ID: <000601c01df1$bcc93280$0a5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" , "Ed Reppert" References: <3.0.6.32.20000912141818.007a4320@pop.ulb.ac.be><39BE2BB5.CD37AA51@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 02:54:34 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 10:29 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more > I don't think the AC can define convention responses as "brown > sticker" or "not brown sticker" in the way they may have done here. I > think they have to look at the regs and the CoC. And it seems to me > that if those are unclear, then the fault does not lie with the > putative offending side in the case, but with the tournament > organization. Perhaps it's the WBF who should get penalized. :-) +=+ I am unable to comment directly on the specific case. The AC found that an undisclosed partnership agreement existed and instituted sanctions in relation to the tournament, and conditions as to the future. It will not be difficult, if thought fit, to reset the regulation. Multi 2D is excluded from BS as a concession; the view, unless it changes, is that it is not desired that the object of such a concession should be the medium for psychic action based upon partnership understanding in tournaments where the convention would not be allowed but for the concession. ~ 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 Sep 14 12:15:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8E2FVd14223 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:15:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8E2FOt14218 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:15:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.10] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13ZOYV-000DYt-00; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 03:15:15 +0100 Message-ID: <000701c01df1$bdbd5680$0a5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , References: <000d01c01ba5$a3be85e0$5c5408c3@dodona> <008601c01c90$8ff2db60$375408c3@dodona> <19Ms+ABSajv5EwRj@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <39BF4AC7.5F103C@village.uunet.be> <200009131740.NAA19589@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal #3 Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 03:13:22 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 6:40 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal #3 > > And if I have trod on anyone's toes in the process, I would like to be > made aware of that, so that I may first apologize, and second minimize > repeats. > > +=+ I do not think anyone's toes have been trodden on. A desire for a transparent account of a committee's process is understandable. Actually I think that the reporting provided a transparent account. What I deprecate is the wholly unjustified suspicion that the AC had some design for concealment and the fuelling of that by some inaccuracies in reporting of its brief; it did act within its terms of reference. ~ 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 Sep 14 12:16:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8E2GdX14241 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:16:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8E2GYt14237 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:16:34 +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 MAA23684 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:11:51 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 13:12:26 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 13:13:49 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 14/09/2000 01:09:29 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: "A convention is a set of things, including responses. Multi is a convention, and it includes certain standard responses." This is the colloquial definition of convention. But the Laws define a convention as "A call..." - singular. Take this sequence: 1NT - 2C (Simple Stayman, requesting partner to bid a major or 2D with neither) - Pass (a gambling refusal of the request, holding a minimum with clubs). The Pass cannot be regulated by the SO as it is a natural call. The only Lawful BSC regulation the SO could create would be to make Simple Stayman Brown Sticker for all pairs, not merely the gamblers. Best wishes R -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 14 18:10:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8E89Jo14400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 18:09:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8E89Bt14396 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 18:09:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.235] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13ZU4s-000Gzz-00; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 09:09:03 +0100 Message-ID: <000701c01e23$2a600b80$eb5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" , References: <005201c01c81$bdaa7e00$375408c3@dodona><002d01c017ff$db3d4960$abdd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com><4.3.2.7.1.20000913075856.00b2c590@127.0.0.1><3.0.6.32.20000913172338.008569c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] did insufficient to protect his own back ? Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 09:08:27 +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: Thursday, September 14, 2000 1:41 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] did insufficient to protect his own back ? > > > I'd go berserk if you did that. You are *intentionally* misleading your > opponents, and you knew it. I'd issue a PP just to start with and would > probably wonder audibly and publicly about your parentage, your sister's > morals and your daughter's reputation :))))) cheers john > -- +=+ When replying to an 'opponent's inquiry ' Law 75C must be satisfied. It is carefully worded to apply to any inquiry about a call or play, and makes it an offence to reply only to the question as asked, omitting essential information which is not attributable to general knowledge and experience. ~ 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 Sep 14 20:12:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8EA8mA14504 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 20:08:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8EA8ct14500 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 20:08:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.0.ap (guppy)) id MAA16801; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:07:01 +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 MAA15719; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:08:10 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000914121812.0085f100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:18:12 +0200 To: Adam Beneschan , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] did insufficient to protect his own back ? In-Reply-To: <200009131756.KAA26970@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 10:56 13/09/00 PDT, you wrote: > >I realize you're probably being half-facetious here, or at least 42.3% >facetious, but I think this last is wrong. AG : slightly less than that, because when I do ask some specific question, I have good reasons. When I ask to the partner-alerter of the 1C opener 'is it forcing ?', I don't mean anything else than 'is it forcing ?', because we play Crash-like defences to all forcing clubs, not to nonforcing ones, even if artificial. So I feel it is right for the player who is asked the question to assume that the answer to that very question is what does matter to his opponent, not the whole system. Obviously, according to the majority of you, I'm wrong. If I ask 'how are you ?' and don't mind the answer, I feel mildly inconsistent. But this is a minority view. 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 Sep 14 20:32:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8EAWVE14530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 20:32:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8EAWOt14526 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 20:32:25 +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 MAA24033; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:30:49 +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 MAA00149; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:31:58 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000914124201.00860ca0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:42:01 +0200 To: Ron Johnson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] Singing in petto (was : Compulsory Pause over Preempt) In-Reply-To: <200009131809.e8DI92c19386@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> References: <005701c01d1a$d2c2a260$a0de36cb@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 14:09 13/09/00 -0400, you wrote: > >People are completely hopeless at estimating time -- even as short as 5 >seconds. Having said that, 5 seconds seems right. Long enough that the >pause is basically unreadable. Try music (not aloud, of course). The tempo of 'Poor old Joe' or 'Kumbaya' is exactly 1 beat per second, and the latter takes exactly 30 sec a verse. The moment you've come to the second 'my Lord', 10 seconds have elapsed. If the opponents took a whole verse to bid, it's too much. If you prefer classic, the time for one 'period' (up-then-down melody move) of the main theme of Smetana's 'Vltava' (the Moldau) is fractionally more than 10 seconds. Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 14 22:15:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8ECEBo14632 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 22:14:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8ECE4t14627 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 22:14:05 +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 e8ECDx052368 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 08:14:00 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000914080035.00ab02d0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 08:15:02 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director In-Reply-To: <39bf9752.1ee8.0@btinternet.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 11:03 AM 9/13/00, dburn wrote: >There is a part of this that puzzles me. Consider this >scenario: > >South arrives in four hearts doubled, an absurd contract. >An excited kibitzer says loudly to his friend, so that all >the players can hear him: "Look at that! He's in four >hearts doubled, and the hearts are 6-0 so he's going to >go five down!" > >There seems, if I have understood recent messages >correctly, to be a consensus that further play of the >board is now impossible per L16C3, and that the >Director should award an artificial adjusted score under >Law 12C1 of (presumably) average plus to both sides. > >Before exploring further this ridiculous notion, I would >like to confirm that it is indeed what Eric, Hirsch and >others now believe. Correct. I didn't start out believing it, but David S. and Hirsch have convinced me otherwise. The argument seems to be that (a) L16B applies "when a player accidentally receives UI about a board he is playing"; (b) If the UI could interfere with normal play, the TD, absent the opportunity to apply L16B1 or L16B2, "forthwith award[s] an artificial adjusted score", the "forthwith" meaning that he is not to allow play to continue; and (c) the words "artificial adjusted score" require the application of L12C1. L12C1 requires the award of "average plus (at least 60%...)... (see... Law 88...)". L88 calls for adjusted score of "a minimum of 60%... or the percentage... earned on boards actually played during the session". The debate seems to have moved on to whether "minimum of 60%... or the percentage... earned" actually means "the lesser of 60%... or..." or "at least the lesser of...". I don't have a position on this at this point, and am eagerly hoping to read some good arguments and formulate 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 Thu Sep 14 22:43:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8EChKD14689 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 22:43:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8EChDt14685 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 22:43:14 +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 e8ECh9857035 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 08:43:09 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000914083520.00b301c0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 08:44:13 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Compulsory Pause over Preempt In-Reply-To: <200009131809.e8DI92c19386@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> References: <005701c01d1a$d2c2a260$a0de36cb@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 02:09 PM 9/13/00, Ron wrote: >Peter Gill writes: > > Also, how long would an acceptable "meaningless" pause over > > a 4S overcall of 1H be, assuming no Stop Cards? 1 second? > > 3 seconds? 5 seconds? Or is there no quantifiable standard? > >People are completely hopeless at estimating time -- even as short as 5 >seconds. Having said that, 5 seconds seems right. Long enough that the >pause is basically unreadable. When discussing pauses after skip bids, we place far too much emphasis on trying to quantify the exact number of seconds the pause should last. This shouldn't surprise us, as SO regulation emphasize the timing; the ACBL regulation, for example, calls for "about 10 seconds". To be truly ethical, a player with no problem should act as though he might be considering some other action. He should pause for a length of time which should be the same as what he would normally take if he were giving mild consideration to some other action (which depends on his usual tempo), look at his cards, and generally try to "play act" at thinking about something. In my book, a player who pauses for 5 or 15 seconds while doing this is acting correctly, while a player who pauses for exactly 10 seconds while looking at his watch, or obviously counting time, is acting unethically and improperly. Yet there seem to be an awful lot of folks out there who believe that the latter is not only perfectly acceptable, but precisely what the so-called "10-second rule" requires. 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 Sep 14 23:26:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8EDPrY14719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 23:25:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8EDPnt14715 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 23:25:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id fa848437 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 23:23:45 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-004-p-215-57.tmns.net.au ([203.54.215.57]) by mail5.bigpond.com (Claudes-Detailed-MailRouter V2.9b 9/2277615); 14 Sep 2000 23:23:45 Message-ID: <009501c01df2$e8b45f40$39d736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] did insufficient to protect his own back ? Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:05:42 +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: > .... because when I do ask some specific question, >I have good reasons. When I ask to the partner-alerter of the >1C opener 'is it forcing ?', I don't mean anything else than >'is it forcing ?', because we play Crash-like defences to all >forcing clubs, not to nonforcing ones, even if artificial. >So I feel it is right for the player who is asked the question >to assume that the answer to that very question is what does >matter to his opponent, not the whole system. Obviously, >according to the majority of you, I'm wrong. An answer such as: "Yes it's forcing, do you want to know more?" seems appropriate 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 Thu Sep 14 23:57:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8EDvIn14744 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 23:57:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8EDvAt14740 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 23:57:11 +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 PAA12509; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 15:57:51 +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 PAA09606; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 15:56:44 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000914160648.00859d30@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 16:06:48 +0200 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Compulsory Pause over Preempt In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20000914083520.00b301c0@127.0.0.1> References: <200009131809.e8DI92c19386@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> <005701c01d1a$d2c2a260$a0de36cb@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 08:44 14/09/00 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > >To be truly ethical, a player with no problem should act as though he might >be considering some other action. He should pause for a length of time >which should be the same as what he would normally take if he were giving >mild consideration to some other action (which depends on his usual tempo), AG : yes, one experienced TD once said, responding to a call after I paused for about 4 seconds over a skip bid : 'for him, that's like an eternity', and that was that. I'm notoriously quick. >look at his cards, and generally try to "play act" at thinking about >something. AG : One way to do so would be asking about the bid (if alerted) or looking at the appropriate place on their convention card, and I recommend it. In my book, a player who pauses for 5 or 15 seconds while doing >this is acting correctly, while a player who pauses for exactly 10 seconds >while looking at his watch, or obviously counting time, is acting >unethically and improperly. Yet there seem to be an awful lot of folks out >there who believe that the latter is not only perfectly acceptable, but >precisely what the so-called "10-second rule" requires. AG : and there are those who place their hand on the BB, pause some time, then pull out the veery card their hand was on at first. AG : this also means it would be normal to pause less in improbable-to-bid-on auctions, like 1C-p-1H-p-4D-... (with Diamonds, I would have bid before). 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 Sep 15 00:32:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8EEW3u14774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 00:32:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8EEVtt14770 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 00:31:56 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e8EEW5o13416 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 10:32:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200009141432.e8EEW5o13416@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Compulsory Pause over Preempt To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 10:32:05 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20000914083520.00b301c0@127.0.0.1> from "Eric Landau" at Sep 14, 2000 08:44:13 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 Eric Landau writes: > > To be truly ethical, a player with no problem should act as though he might > be considering some other action. He should pause for a length of time > which should be the same as what he would normally take if he were giving > mild consideration to some other action (which depends on his usual tempo), > look at his cards, and generally try to "play act" at thinking about > something. In my book, a player who pauses for 5 or 15 seconds while doing > this is acting correctly, while a player who pauses for exactly 10 seconds > while looking at his watch, or obviously counting time, is acting > unethically and improperly. Yet there seem to be an awful lot of folks out > there who believe that the latter is not only perfectly acceptable, but > precisely what the so-called "10-second rule" requires. > I don't have much to offer beyond this except to hope that others pick this up and run with it. Any governing body that has some kind of mandatory pause in their regulations needs to include a note to this effect. -- 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 Sep 15 00:57:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8EEvYG14802 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 00:57:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8EEvMt14798 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 00:57:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id KAA27878 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 10:57:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA24036 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 10:57:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 10:57:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200009141457.KAA24036@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal #3 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > I think, Steve, if you are going to attack "current policy" you might > at least refer to more than one isolated appeal. "Attack" is a bit strong, don't you think? Let's have a review. Agreed, we are discussing one single appeal, or more precisely, the _writeup_ of one single appeal. It caused enormous controversy for the rather silly reason that much of the world didn't have a clue about the basis for the decision. I suggested the controversy could have been avoided if the scribe (with the approval of the AC chairman) had added a simple statement of an obvious (but only to some) mathematical fact. You said that is against current policy. I said the policy could be changed and asked for reasons why it should be kept the way it is. I notice that no such reasons have yet been provided. Instead there have been attacks on BLML in general and implications that I have written things I have not. If a policy allowing explanatory comments is adopted, I wouldn't expect such comments to be needed in more than one or two cases at a typical event. The bulk of the appeals writeups are just fine. So let's try once again: in the rare cases where the AC considers something -- a mathematical fact or the phrasing of a Law -- obvious and therefore does not discuss it, should the scribe add a labeled note with the "obvious" fact to help readers understand? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 15 01:12:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8EFCO914823 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 01:12:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8EFCHt14819 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 01:12:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id LAA28632 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:12:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA24065 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:12:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:12:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200009141512.LAA24065@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Singing in petto (was : Compulsory Pause over Preempt) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: alain gottcheiner > Try music (not aloud, of course). The tempo of 'Poor old Joe' or 'Kumbaya' > is exactly 1 beat per second, and the latter takes exactly 30 sec a verse. > The moment you've come to the second 'my Lord', 10 seconds have elapsed. You must sing faster than I do. It took me 13.4, 12.7, 13.4, and 13.3 seconds in four trials. Still maybe a good idea if the individual tempo is calibrated and if it is no different at the bridge table than sitting quietly in a chair. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 15 01:16:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8EFGFY14838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 01:16:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8EFGBt14834 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 01:16:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id aa022204 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 01:09:53 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-012-p-228-223.tmns.net.au ([203.54.228.223]) by mail7.bigpond.com (Claudes-Retiring-MailRouter V2.9b 15/8342634); 15 Sep 2000 01:09:52 Message-ID: <009a01c01e01$b37d2e60$dfe436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 14:10:21 +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 Hirsch Davis wrote: >However, as a mitigating circumstance, I believe David >Stevenson reported that the LC determined at Maastricht >that a TD may not award greater than 60% unless a player's >session average is higher. Reported where? On BLML or in the Daily Bulletins in Maastricht? 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 Sep 15 01:30:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8EFUXg14851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 01:30:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8EFUSt14847 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 01:30:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ka022266 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 01:19:55 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-012-p-228-223.tmns.net.au ([203.54.228.223]) by mail7.bigpond.com (Claudes-Metric-MailRouter V2.9b 15/8344013); 15 Sep 2000 01:19:54 Message-ID: <009b01c01e03$1a7feb60$dfe436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] 60% or "minimum of 60%" (in Law 88) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 14:20:23 +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 Eric Landau wrote (in the parent thread "Board spoiled by director"): > >L88 calls for adjusted score of "a minimum of 60%... or the >percentage... earned on boards actually played during the session". >The debate seems to have moved on to whether "minimum of 60%... >or the percentage... earned" actually means "the lesser of 60%... or..." >or "at least the lesser of...". I don't have a position on this at this >point, and am eagerly hoping to read some good arguments >and formulate one. I thought that Steve Willner produced a convincing argument (in the parent thread). Ignoring the pair who scores over 60% for the time being ... (1) If the words "a minumum of" were not in Law 88, then the meaning would be that Av+ is 60%. (2) I would hope that the three words are not superfluous. Thus they mean something. Something being that the Director can award a minimum of 60%, i.e. 60% or 65% or 80% or whatever, depending on the circumstances. Normally 60%, but with discretion to award more. Note the inconsistency between Law 88 and Law 86A (imps). The latter has no words such as "a minimum of". This can produce ridiculous outcomes, e.g if a table has to take 9 averages in a 16 board teams match, then both pairs receive a 27 imp bonus. IMO Law 88 is worded reasonably but Law 86A needs repair. 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 Sep 15 01:45:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8EFitw14868 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 01:44:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8EFimt14864 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 01:44:49 +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 IAA18541; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 08:44:42 -0700 Message-Id: <200009141544.IAA18541@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Compulsory Pause over Preempt In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 14 Sep 2000 10:32:05 PDT." <200009141432.e8EEW5o13416@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 08:44:41 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ron Johnson wrote: > Eric Landau writes: > > > > To be truly ethical, a player with no problem should act as though > > he might be considering some other action. He should pause for a > > length of time which should be the same as what he would normally > > take if he were giving mild consideration to some other action > > (which depends on his usual tempo), look at his cards, and > > generally try to "play act" at thinking about something. Sometimes, it works out that I do have something to think about anyway. in an auction like 1S-2S-4S, if I'm on the 4S bidder's left, I can think about what I'm going to lead. > > In my > > book, a player who pauses for 5 or 15 seconds while doing this is > > acting correctly, while a player who pauses for exactly 10 seconds > > while looking at his watch, or obviously counting time, is acting > > unethically and improperly. Yet there seem to be an awful lot of > > folks out there who believe that the latter is not only perfectly > > acceptable, but precisely what the so-called "10-second rule" > > requires. > > > I don't have much to offer beyond this except to hope that others > pick this up and run with it. Any governing body that has some kind > of mandatory pause in their regulations needs to include a note to > this effect. The ACBL already has this in their regulations: When RHO has announced a skip bid, the player following the skip bidder must wait for a suitable interval (about 10 seconds). In waiting the player's manner must be one that suggests he is an active participant in the auction (the hand should be studied during the pause). Any obvious display of disinterest is most improper. -- 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 Sep 15 02:24:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8EGOAc14891 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 02:24:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8EGO4t14887 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 02:24:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive47m.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.16.246]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA03736 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:24:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <004701c01e68$a74ac0a0$f610f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: [BLML] Interpretation and requested change of words Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:27:18 -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 You fellows appear to have gotten this one right. Could this be an example of an area in which the development of a body of case law may assist future TD/ACs? Craig Senior > At 01:35 AM 9/12/00, Grattan wrote: >> >> >+=+ The WBFLC has minuted a request for copyright holders >> >when next printing the laws to make a change in the footnote to >> >Laws 69,70,71. In future this is to read: >> > "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71 'normal' includes >> >play that would be careless or inferior, but not irrational, for >> >the class of player involved." >> > The current footnote is interpreted as though it were >> >so worded. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> (EL)>> This makes it a lot clearer that the terms "careless or inferior" and >> "irrational" are set in opposition, i.e. there is a "line" between >> them. It also makes it clear that the placement of that line depends on >> the class of player involved, although it (presumably deliberately) offers >> no guidance as to where to draw it. >> (GE)>+=+ The judgement of the Director/AC determines >which side of the line an action sits. The revision >leaves that decision in those hands. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 15 02:27:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8EGRQR14904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 02:27:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8EGRJt14900 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 02:27:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis45.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.45]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.1999.06.13.00.20) with ESMTP id <0G0V005PMXPD5N@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 18:27:15 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 18:27:10 +0200 From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director In-reply-to: <005401c01e5f$7f354da0$f8033dd4@default> X-Sender: bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de To: Ben Schelen Cc: BLML Message-id: <4.3.2.7.0.20000914181829.00a9b990@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: <4.3.2.7.0.20000913175729.00af2c40@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 16:35 14.09.2000 +0200, Ben Schelen wrote: >Richard, >I would ask you as a studied lawyer what you think of my view: >At the moment that the TD showed the hand record she did it as somebody else >and not as a TD. Because it does not belong to the task of a TD to show the >hand record during playtime. I dont think that this is true. It doesnt belong to the task of a TD to make WRONG decisions. If he does so, he is not a TD, so L88 isnt applicable. This is obviously not what the lawmakers intended. This shows that a TD not necessarily is only a person who does everything right. A TD who shows the hand record to a player at inappropriate time is still a TD (BTW: otherwise the person who seems to be the TD wouldnt have the hand records before play ends). >If you agree then we have the same problem as David Burn mentioned. I think there is a difference between a TD and a spectator. Anyway: I just mentioned some juridical ways out of the dilemma. As long as the WBFLC doesnt assimilate this view, there is IMHO no reason to give anything else then A+/A+ to the players. 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 Fri Sep 15 02:30:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8EGUdJ14916 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 02:30:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8EGUXt14912 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 02:30:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive47m.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.16.246]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA29760 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:30:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <004e01c01e69$8f9240e0$f610f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal #3 Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:33:47 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk If this is serious, it is somewhat reprehensible I think. If you are unwilling to serve on an AC then don't. If you serve, then the promise of libations should not provoke a hasty or not-fully-thought-out decision. It is rather like the juror in 12 Angry Men who wanted to find the defendant guilty to get to the baseball game on time. I would expect better of all of you. On the other hand, I fully agree that the scribe should not report what the AC did NOT do. Reportage should be accurate first and foremost. That does not mean drawing unwarranted inferences about what the AC may have meant...or creating explanations for its actions out of whole cloth. Craig Senior >Be dissapointed if you want. But tell me if you would have >insisted on quantification if all that is said is "4 IMPs" >and everyone (including you, who has quantified) agrees. > >Some have said "the bar closes in 20 minutes". That was >true. > >-- >Herman DE WAEL -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 15 03:04:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8EH3bx14948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 03:03:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.worldcom.ch (mail1.worldcom.ch [212.74.176.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8EH3Tt14944 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 03:03:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (portmp148.worldcom.ch [212.74.135.148]) by mail.worldcom.ch (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA02956 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 19:03:13 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000914190338.00872bf0@worldcom.ch> X-Sender: fsb@worldcom.ch X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 19:03:38 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Yvan Calame Subject: [BLML] Maastrict Appeals online In-Reply-To: References: <200009122221.SAA10404@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200009122221.SAA10404@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Maastrict Appeals are online at: http://home.worldcom.ch/fsb/appealse.html Yvan. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 15 03:05:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8EH5fk14960 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 03:05:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8EH5Zt14956 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 03:05:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.24]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 10:05:48 -0700 Message-ID: <003401c01e6d$d72700e0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000914080035.00ab02d0@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 10:04:19 -0700 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 Eric Landau wrote: > L12C1 requires the award of "average plus (at least 60%...)... (see... Law > 88...)". L88 calls for adjusted score of "a minimum of 60%... or the > percentage... earned on boards actually played during the session". The > debate seems to have moved on to whether "minimum of 60%... or the > percentage... earned" actually means "the lesser of 60%... or..." or "at > least the lesser of...". I don't have a position on this at this point, > and am eagerly hoping to read some good arguments and formulate one. > L88 is just poorly punctuated, needing a colon after "a minimum of." The colon would make clear that 60% and actual percentage (whichever is greater) are alternative minimum adjustments, not alternative adjustments. Such use of the colon is old-fashioned, however. Preferable would be "at least 60%, but not less than the percentage earned..." The popular reading of L88, which makes alternatives of 60% and actual percentage, also makes (as others have pointed out) the words "a minimum of" meaningless and unnecessary. Looking at L12C1, we see that the artificial adjustment for an at-fault contestant is "at most 40%," with no stated minimum. Surely the corollary is that 100% should be the limit for a no-fault contestant. It remains that a contestant who was headed for a zero can also get 60% or... if not at fault for an irregularity, and that ought to be fixed. My suggestion is that L16B be revised to permit use of L12C2 as a fourth option under certain circumstances, treating both sides as non-offenders. Then "the most favorable result that was likely" might be a zero. Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, 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 Fri Sep 15 04:25:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8EIOTA15047 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 04:24:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8EIOMt15043 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 04:24:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA21899; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:24:19 -0700 Message-Id: <200009141824.LAA21899@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 14 Sep 2000 08:15:02 PDT." <4.3.2.7.1.20000914080035.00ab02d0@127.0.0.1> Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:24:20 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > L12C1 requires the award of "average plus (at least 60%...)... (see... Law > 88...)". L88 calls for adjusted score of "a minimum of 60%... or the > percentage... earned on boards actually played during the session". The > debate seems to have moved on to whether "minimum of 60%... or the > percentage... earned" actually means "the lesser of 60%... or..." or "at > least the lesser of...". I don't have a position on this at this point, > and am eagerly hoping to read some good arguments and formulate one. I'm coming into this debate late, and haven't been following the thread closely. After reading Marv's post, I decided to look at L88 closely. The text is: In a pair or individual event, when a non-offending contestant is required to take an artificial adjusted score through no fault or choice of his own, such contestant shall be awarded a minimum of 60% of the matchpoints available to him on that board, or the percentage of matchpoints he earned on boards actually played during the session if that percentage was greater than 60%. If I understand him correctly, one possible reading Eric suggests is: Such contestant shall be awarded the lesser of these two: (1) 60% of the matchpoints available to him on the board, (2) the percentage of matchpoints he earned on boards actually played during the session if that percentage was greater than 60%. I don't think this is a possibility. First of all, it's certainly wrong to ignore the last clause of (2) and read it like this: Such contestant shall be awarded the lesser of these two: (1) 60% of the matchpoints available to him on the board, (2) the percentage of matchpoints he earned on boards actually played during the session. That would mean that if a pair was having a 43% game, then "average-plus" would mean the lesser of 60% and 43%, which would be 43%. Certainly absurd. So suppose we put this clause back, and interpret (2) . . . if that percentage was greater than 60%. to mean that (2) is to be ignored unless the pair is having an over-60% game. Now, there are two cases: (A) If the pair is having a 60% or less game, only (1) is considered, and we award him 60% of the board. (B) If the pair is having a greater than 60% game, we consider (2). Now, if we read the Law as meaning "the lesser of", we award the lesser of 60% and some percentage that is greater than 60%. In other words, exactly 60%. Same as in (A). In other words, we have a Law with a whole lot of roundabout wording that means "exactly 60% in all cases". Also absurd. So it's pretty obvious to me that that cannot be what was intended. Another point is that when you're using the term "minimum" to mean "the smallest of the things that I'm about to enumerate", the proper idiomatic way of saying it is "*THE* minimum of ...", not "*A* minimum of ...". (IMHO, even "THE minimum of" is an uncommon way to express it; "the lesser (least) of" or "the smaller(st) of" would be the more usual phrasing.) So in any case, the phrase "a minimum" cannot be reasonably interpreted to mean "the lesser of", and the only possibility left is that it means "at least". I think the Law should be read as follows: In a pair or individual event, when a non-offending contestant is required to take an artificial adjusted score through no fault or choice of his own: (a) Such contestant shall be awarded at least 60% of the matchpoints available to him on that board. (b) Or, if the percentage of matchpoints he earned on boards actually played during the session if that percentage was greater than 60%, then the contestant shall be awarded at least THAT percentage of the matchpoints available to him on the board. Obviously, if this clause applies, it supersedes part (a). Note that I included the words "at least" in part (b), but this is, I suppose, open to debate. In the original wording, it's not grammatically clear whether "a minimum of" applies to the phrase after the following comma or not. I.e.: In a pair or individual event, when a non-offending contestant is required to take an artificial adjusted score through no fault or choice of his own, such contestant shall be awarded a minimum of 60% of the matchpoints available to him on that board, or [a minimum of] the percentage of matchpoints he earned on boards actually played during the session if that percentage was greater than 60%. Is my phrase in brackets supposed to be implied, or not? I think it is. If you don't assume it is there, you're left with the following absurd situation: If the pair has had a below-60% game, you award *at least* 60%, which means that you could award any higher percentage you want (say, 80% of the board); but if the pair has had a 63% game, say, you must award 63% and have no discretion to award a higher percentage. This doesn't make sense. If, on the other hand, you interpret it to mean that you award exactly 60% if the pair has had a below-60% game, then Marv is right that the words "a minimum of" in the Law are meaningless. So my conclusion is that, looking at just this Law, the TD is allowed to award any percentage of the board, up to 100%, as long as it's at least the minimum amount specified by the Law, with the minimum amount being either 60% or the pair's average throughout the session, whichever is *greater*. Just MHO. I'm not making any judgments as to what the Laws' authors actually intended. It's entirely possible that they added superfluous and meaningless wording in the erroneous belief that it would clarify the meaning. -- 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 Sep 15 04:43:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8EIhTV15066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 04:43:29 +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 (oe17.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.121]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8EIhNt15062 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 04:43:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:43:15 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [209.206.12.79] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <3.0.6.32.20000909021322.008651e0@worldcom.ch> Subject: Re: [BLML] voided claim Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 13:41:50 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Sep 2000 18:43:15.0984 (UTC) FILETIME=[A4BA0900:01C01E7B] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Yvan Calame To: Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 7:13 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] voided claim At 18:51 08.09.00 +0200, JPR wrote: > I had heard about an appeal from the England-Belgium match in Olympiad >round of 16, and it has just been made public (Maastricht appeal n° 16): ====================================================================== Appeal No. 16 ====================================================================== Belgium v England Open Teams Round of 16 Board 30. Dealer East. None Vul. S 3 H K Q 10 9 8 D A 5 4 C K J 5 4 S 4 S Q J 9 8 5 H 7 4 2 H A 5 D K Q J 8 D 7 6 3 2 C A 9 7 6 3 C Q 10 S A K 10 7 6 2 H J 6 3 D 10 9 C 8 2 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Engel Hallberg V. Middelem Simpson - - 2S (1) Pass 2NT 3H Pass 4H All Pass (1) 5 spades and 4+ of a minor ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Lead: The CQ. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Result: 9 tricks, N/S -50 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- TD's statement of Facts: North claimed at the following position: S 3 H Q 9 D A 5 C K J 5 S 4 S Q J 9 8 H -- H -- D K Q 8 D 7 6 2 C 9 7 6 3 C 10 S A K 10 7 6 2 H -- D 9 C 2 North stated he would make the contract on a double squeeze, provided that the information about the opening bid was accurate. At the time of the claim, East/West requested North to play the hand out. North now played and misplayed the final two cards. This table was open on Vugraph. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Director: Ruled that the claim was okay. According to Law 68D, all play subsequent to a claim is voided and the Director adjudicates the claim based on the claimer's statement. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ruling: Score adjusted to 4H making, N/S +420 to both sides. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Relevant Laws: Laws 68D, 70A, 70B. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -s- --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Committee: The Committee found that by law any play following a claim was void and the Director (or a Committee) is to adjudicate the claim based only on the claimer's statement. Had North been properly asked to elaborate on his statement of "double squeeze" he would have explained that he would cash his top hearts and clubs (as he did), forcing East to save three spades and unguard diamonds. The two top spades would then force West to unguard one of the minors, after which North would pitch the minor West kept. In effect, this would have prevented North from having the opportunity to commit the careless error he ultimately made. Since his error could not by law prejudice the adjudication of the claim, this was essentially a book ruling and the Committee had no reason to reverse it, nor indeed can they change the law. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Committee's decision: Director's ruling upheld. Score adjusted to 4H made four, N/S +420, for both pairs. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dissenting Opinion (Jeffrey Polisner): Since the law assumes careless play in determining whether a claim without a stated line of play (which actually occurred at the table in the part of the play which was cancelled) should be allowed, I believe a player should not be awarded a score which he could not actually achieve at the table. Players must be educated to state a complete line of play at the time of their claim or be subject to assumptions of careless play. --- I have been reading the words of L68D. It makes clear that play subsequent a claim is voided. However, it does not say here or anywhere else that such subsequent play if it existed is not evidence to be considered as to what is normal [careless but not irrational] for the claimer on the unstated line of play claimed for the hand. I feel that the statement of claim must not be taken from claimer. But his statement was not so clear as to what double squeeze meant at the time. I do think that the subsequent play provided illumination on the matter. 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 Fri Sep 15 05:19:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8EJITX15099 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 05:18:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.211.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e8EJIIt15095 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 05:18:23 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 15313 invoked for bounce); 14 Sep 2000 19:18:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.57.235) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 14 Sep 2000 19:18:08 -0000 Message-ID: <019801c01e80$c1a5f560$d2291dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <000d01c01ba5$a3be85e0$5c5408c3@dodona> <008601c01c90$8ff2db60$375408c3@dodona> <19Ms+ABSajv5EwRj@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <39BF4AC7.5F103C@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal #3 Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 21:19:04 +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: > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > > We are publishing appeals. I had assumed that there would be a good > > reason to hide part of the reasoning, not that the AC could not be > > bothered. I have been defending this AC and its scribe and I shall be > > very disappointed if the reason is [as some have alleged] that the AC > > could not be bothered to quantify. > > > > Why would there be a good reason to hide anything ? > > The truth is that the AC did not quantify probabilities, but > preferred to express its correction into IMPs. > There seems to me no obligation for any AC to quantify. > I don't know why any individual (apart from me) agreed to > the correction value, but I know that they did. I don't have a problem with the quantification in IMPs instead of probabilities. However, I have the impression this AC failed to work through the details of the hand after the lead of a small club, and hence I think this AC did a poor job. Thomas, repeating himself -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 15 05:29:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8EJShu15112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 05:28:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.0.213]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8EJSbt15108 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 05:28:38 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id B6F2D9154; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 15:28:33 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000914190338.00872bf0@worldcom.ch> References: <200009122221.SAA10404@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200009122221.SAA10404@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.6.32.20000914190338.00872bf0@worldcom.ch> Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 15:27:56 -0400 To: Yvan Calame From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastrict Appeals online Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 7:03 PM +0200 9/14/00, Yvan Calame wrote: >Maastrict Appeals are online at: > >http://home.worldcom.ch/fsb/appealse.html These appear to be the cases that made it into the daily bulletin. Two of those that did not, the Sweden-Austria appeals, were posted recently to rec.games.bridge. -- Adam Wildavsky -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 15 06:42:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8EKfTm15154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 06:41:29 +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.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 e8EKfNt15150 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 06:41:23 +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 <20000914204119.IHLY1384.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 13:41:19 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Maastrict Appeal #3 Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 13:40:22 -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) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <39BF4962.9BF74FFC@village.uunet.be> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Steve Willner wrote: > > > > > > The question on the table is whether in future scribes should, with the > > approval of the AC chairman, add indisputable facts in order to help > > readers understand a decision. These facts would be labeled as having > > been added later. Often the entire AC is aware of certain facts, e.g. > > the conversion from percentages of scores to IMPs or the exact text of > > a law, that the average player does not know. Even when these facts > > are relevant to a decision, the AC may not discuss them because > > everyone in the room knows that everyone else knows them. The proposal > > is that the scribe tell the readers what the AC knew and found no > > reason to say because it literally "went without saying." > > > > Please tell me why this is a bad idea. > My few cents worth... First and foremost: The report belongs to the Chairman. Period. If they did not take proper time to review and edit, it's their problem. It is also my personal opinion that either the Chairman should write the report or the scribe should not be a member of the Committee. However, after doing a few hundred of these things, and getting a fair load of feedback over the last five years of casebooks, it is my view that a scribe over time will learn to identify when things need to be clarified and ask a simple "could you please explain how you arrived at that conclusion for my report?" I also firmly believe it is wrong for a scribe to add anything that was not clearly stated during the hearing. Integrity goes out the window. Trust me, I have learned this the hard way. I would be more amenable to a Chairman's note after the fact if it were thought to be necessary. HermY will be an expert after he has done 500 or so more of these... :-) **JUST KIDDING!!!!!** ps. Hermy - i never got my second beer card beer! Wait 'til you see how many you owe me with inflation!! -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 15 06:52:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8EKqLf15166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 06:52:21 +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 (f249.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.249]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8EKqFt15162 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 06:52:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 13:52:07 -0700 Received: from 172.175.53.255 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 20:52:07 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.175.53.255] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 13:52:07 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Sep 2000 20:52:07.0993 (UTC) FILETIME=[A55CFA90:01C01E8D] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Wayne Burrows" >From: "Herman De Wael" > > A convention is a set of things, including responses. > >Sorry Herman, not true. I'm going to side with Herman. >Convention - 1. 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. 2. Defender's play that serves to convey a meaning by >agreement >rather than inference. > >By definition a convention is a call. That call may have a set of >responses >that may also be conventional. That only defines by law whether a bid is or is not considered a convention. Give the convention a name and you must include the entire response structure. > > Multi is a convention, and it includes certain standard > > responses. > >No Multi is a convention, and it has certain standard responses but I don't >see why a pair should be obliged to use those standard responses. Why not >encourage innovation? If my partner and I agree to play multi, that agreement includes the standard responses. Otherwise, the convention we are playing is something other that Multi. Likewise, Jacoby 2NT where the 3-level responses are long suits and the 4-level responses are singletons or voids is no longer Jacoby 2NT, but more like Variations on a Theme by Jacoby. -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 Fri Sep 15 07:17:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8ELGkq15189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 07:16:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8ELGet15185 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 07:16:40 +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 <20000914211634.JJFK1384.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 14:16:34 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Redress after damage from proper procedure? Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 14:15:36 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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: <200009131600.MAA16269@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk There was an appeal involving this very situation in San Francico (that time 4NT was a spade cuebid over a 4H bid as 4S would have been Blackwood.) It is Case Sixteen in the San Francisco appeals book - Here is an excerpt from what Rich said at the time and to my knowledge is still the view of the C&C committee: The approach which the ACBL has adopted of not Alerting conventional calls above the level of 3NT, starting with opener’s rebid (such bids are explained after the auction is concluded), is based upon a sound premise: that such Alerts serve to convey unauthorized information between the bidders more often than to provide the opponents with information critical to them at that time. For example, Alerting 4D (as Redwood) is more likely to help the slam bidders avoid confusion about whether 4D is ace-asking or a cue-bid than it is to provide the defenders with timely, critical information. In other words, the procedure was adopted to protect the opponents by eliminating sensitive, and usually unnecessary, Alerts. Players are always entitled to ask about the opponents’ bids, especially in slam-going auctions above 3NT. Committees should bend over backward to protect the non-bidders from Catch-22 types of situations, providing that questions are asked in a manner which avoids disclosing something about the asker’s hand. (For example, players should decide in advance whether they will always ask questions during the auction, or always wait until the auction is over to ask, or only ask when they intend to make a call and the answer may avoid the type of problem which occurred here.) While his places an extra burden on the defenders, nothing is perfect and the gains should more than make up for the extra precaution needed. But nothing comes without a cost. The present case is an illustration of the occasional price we will have to pay for the frequent protection which 'delayed Alerts' provide. To make an analogy, people are occasionally hurt (or worse) in car accidents because they were wearing seat belts; but many more lives are saved by requiring that seat belts be worn. So, should the few individuals who were injured because they were wearing seat belts tie up the courts in protest of seat belt laws? Should players file an appeal which they know to be meritless without jeopardy? Should a Committee be asked to consider an issue that they can legally do nothing about? Inquiring minds want to know. The answers to these questions clearly depend on several factors. Were the appellants warned that their case was groundless before the hearing? Were they told that they could suffer additional penalties for wasting the Committee’s time? Did they fully understand that the use of the appeal process was inappropriate and could not serve the ends they intended? In the present case we know that the answers to the first two questions were in the affirmative. However, in the final analysis it was the Committee members who had to decide whether to donate their time for the sole purpose of allowing the players to vent their frustrations. Oh, yes, there’s one more question to be asked. Was this really the right hand to test a Committee’s patience and good-will? Could North, in the pass out seat, have compromised his side by asking E/W to explain the meanings of (all) of their bids before doubling? Eric Kokish also added the following: Appeals CASE SIXTEEN raises an important issue, one that might well send the regulators back to the drawing board. The point raised by the N/S pair in this case is well-taken. The Alert procedure was not intended to place the opposing side (the side not making the call that might require an explanation) at a disadvantage. The 'No-Alert' rule for bids of 3NT and beyond (after a player's first turn to bid) was intended to prevent the 'involved' side from conveying unauthorized but potentially undetectable information through the use of Alerts. In this case, there was no suitable “official” solution available to North. If he had asked for an explanation of the E/W bidding and had been given the correct information, he might well have decided not to double the slam, but in the asking, it might have been alleged by E/W that North had shown interest in a spade lead, dummy’s first-shown suit — sort of a Lightner Non-double. While it might then be argued that E/W’s 'unusual' agreement had created the need for their opponents to seek clarification and that N/S should not then be saddled with responsibility for generating unauthorized information, this sort of fractious situation is not one that the sponsoring organization should wish to endorse through its regulations. Many experts believe, nonetheless, that allowing anyone to ask a question at his turn to bid is the most palatable solution to this complex problem. The situation can be remedied, but perhaps not entirely. If we wish to retain the 'No-Alert' rule because its benefits seem to outweigh its deficiencies, we could add a provision that would protect the 'uninformed' side where there is no current legal obligation to do so. We could oblige the side that is about to buy the auction (they have made a bid and two passes have followed) to volunteer to provide the information that their opponents might require before they close out the auction. In CASE SIXTEEN, either West or East would be obliged by Regulation to ask North if he wished an explanation of the entire sequence. If North accepts the offer, he would know without prejudice to his side that East’s 4NT showed a spade control and that West’s 6NT was natural. Then North would be able to double 7H or pass it out, but would not have to ask a potentially prejudicial question. He must not ask about any particular call, but his opponents must provide explanations of all but the strictly standard calls. While this would be the ideal procedure for slam-zone auctions, the introduction of this procedure would not deprive a player from asking a proper question at any of his (other) turns to call. There still might be problems earlier in the auction. A player contemplating a lead-directing double or penalty double might wish to ask about a particular call, conveying unauthorized information when the explanation leads him to pass rather than double. Since we can’t force a player to ask about all of his opponents’ calls, we are going to have to deal with these situations on a case-by-case basis. Linda > Some background for our non-ACBL readers, from the Alert Procedure: > > ALERTABLE BIDS ABOVE THE LEVEL OF 3 NT STARTING WITH OPENERS REBID > > [but not Alertable P, X, or XX...] > > Once the auction has progressed to the point that opener has had the > opportunity to make a rebid, no conventional calls at the four level or > higher should be Alerted until the auction is over. > > These DELAYED ALERTS are REQUIRED to be made by the DECLARING side > before the opening lead is made. The DEFENDERS are REQUIRED to Alert > declarer AFTER the OPENING LEAD but BEFORE declarer makes a play > from dummy. Alerting before the dummy is spread is best. > [last para in bold, emphasis in the original] > > (from http://www.acbl.org/info/charts/alertproc.htm#delayed ) > > The auction proceeds: > > N E S W > 1S-p-2D -p > 4H-p-4NT-p > 6D-AP > > Before the opening lead, declarer Alerts the 4H call as Kickback (RKC > for diamonds). If East had known this, he would have doubled for a > heart 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 Fri Sep 15 07:23:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8ELMwj15201 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 07:22:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f253.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.26]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8ELMrt15197 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 07:22:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 14:22:45 -0700 Received: from 172.175.53.255 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 21:22:45 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.175.53.255] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Singing in petto (was : Compulsory Pause over Preempt) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 14:22:45 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Sep 2000 21:22:45.0672 (UTC) FILETIME=[ECB48A80:01C01E91] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: alain gottcheiner >At 14:09 13/09/00 -0400, you wrote: >Try music (not aloud, of course). The tempo of 'Poor old Joe' or 'Kumbaya' >is exactly 1 beat per second, and the latter takes exactly 30 sec a verse. >The moment you've come to the second 'my Lord', 10 seconds have elapsed. If >the opponents took a whole verse to bid, it's too much. > >If you prefer classic, the time for one 'period' (up-then-down melody move) >of the main theme of Smetana's 'Vltava' (the Moldau) is fractionally more >than 10 seconds. We Americans are raised on Suosa marches. 2 beats a second, 4 seconds a phrase. If you are going to go for singing aloud, The Moldau does good for putting your opponents to sleep, but the Imperial March from Star Wars is far more imposing. ;) -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 Fri Sep 15 07:42:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8ELgGP15219 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 07:42:16 +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 e8ELgAt15215 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 07:42:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id RAA16773 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 17:42:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA24588 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 17:42:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 17:42:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200009142142.RAA24588@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Maastrict Appeal #3 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Linda Trent" > I also firmly believe it is wrong for a scribe to add anything that was not > clearly stated during the hearing. Integrity goes out the window. Trust me, > I have learned this the hard way. I would be more amenable to a Chairman's > note after the fact if it were thought to be necessary. Thanks, Linda. We should listen to the voice of experience! The proposal was that anything added should be clearly labelled as such: "Scribe's (or Chairman's) note added after hearing: (text)." Does that change your opinion? I'm afraid I don't see how this compromises integrity *provided it is used rarely and only to state unequivocal facts* that were relevant to the case but for whatever reason not explicitly stated during the deliberations. Is the worry that if the ability is given, it might be misused for other purposes? Obviously I lack the experience to say. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 15 07:44:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8ELi9315231 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 07:44:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8ELi2t15227 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 07:44:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcaugbe.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.65.110]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA27415 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 17:43:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <007d01c01e94$ad6f00a0$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <009a01c01e01$b37d2e60$dfe436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 17:42:27 -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: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 12:10 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director > Hirsch Davis wrote: > >However, as a mitigating circumstance, I believe David > >Stevenson reported that the LC determined at Maastricht > >that a TD may not award greater than 60% unless a player's > >session average is higher. > > Reported where? On BLML or in the Daily Bulletins in Maastricht? > > Peter Gill. > He posted it in this thread last Monday. I'll reprint the relevant part of the post: ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 10:05 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director > Steve Willner wrote: > >> From: David J Grabiner > >> Hwoever, is there any basis for restoring equity? E-W were headed for > >> a top when the director was called; > > > >Wasn't it Grattan who pointed out that L12C1 says _at least_ 60% for an > >artificial avg+? There seems to be a strong case for 100% this time. > > Not only did he not get much support for this notion here on BLML, but > the Laws Commission ruled in Maastricht that you may not give more than > 60% unless the players' session average is higher. It appears that the issue of the grammatical construction of L12C1/L88 has already been addressed by the LC. Regards, Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 15 08:19:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8EMJ5i15286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 08:19:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8EMJ1t15282 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 08:19:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id pa026951 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 08:19:21 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-226-178.tmns.net.au ([203.54.226.178]) by mail7.bigpond.com (Claudes-Aquatic-MailRouter V2.9b 15/8408926); 15 Sep 2000 08:19:21 Message-ID: <00aa01c01e3d$b3040f80$b2e236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastrict Appeal #3 Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 21:19:50 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Linda Trent wrote: >The report belongs to the Chairman..... I think at WBF level it's President not Chairman nowadays. :) >... ps. Hermy - i never got my second beer card beer! >Wait 'til you see how many you owe me with inflation!! In my circles you lose all rights to beer cards if you inadvertently play the Chairman card instead of the President card. :))) :- Drinkers can go to www.nswba.com.au/youth/ybeer.html to see the basic Amendments to the Laws of Contract Bridge, although By-law 276f, which covers irregularities such as pulling the Chairman card out of the Bidding Box, has not been added to this Beer Card website yet. :) Peter Gill Sydney - a city famed for BeerCards, Olympics and Beer. PS: In Sydney's Individual Championship two Sundays ago, in one four board round at my table, three Beer Cards were claimed. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 15 08:26:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8EMQZA15308 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 08:26:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8EMQVt15304 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 08:26:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ia027334 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 08:26:51 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-226-178.tmns.net.au ([203.54.226.178]) by mail7.bigpond.com (Claudes-Logical-MailRouter V2.9b 15/8411490); 15 Sep 2000 08:26:50 Message-ID: <00c301c01e3e$beea36c0$b2e236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Singing in petto (was : Compulsory Pause over Preempt) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 21:27:19 +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 Eric Landau wrote: >>try to "play act" at thinking about something. In my book, >>a player who pauses for 5 or 15 seconds while doing this >>is acting correctly, while a player who pauses for exactly >>10 seconds while looking at his watch, or obviously counting >>time, is acting unethically and improperly. Singing out loud is dodgy too. Not common yet, but ... :) Todd Zimnoch wrote: > ... 2 beats a second, 4 seconds a phrase. >If you are going to go for singing aloud, The >Moldau does good for putting your opponents >to sleep, but the Imperial March from Star Wars >is far more imposing. ;) Peter Gill Sydney the Olympic 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 Fri Sep 15 09:46:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8ENjqm15346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 09:45:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8ENjkt15342 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 09:45:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.198.200] (helo=D457300) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13ZihI-0005jJ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 00:45:40 +0100 Message-ID: <000501c01ea5$c83c3540$c8c601d5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <00c301c01e3e$beea36c0$b2e236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Singing in petto (was : Compulsory Pause over Preempt) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 00:44:52 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter wrote: > Singing out loud is dodgy too. Not common yet, but ... :) Oh, I don't know. No need for Lightner doubles any more - just sing a few lead-directing songs. "Diamonds are a girl's best friend", "Hearts of Oak"... Moreover, there would be no more need for acrimonious post mortems. A few bars of "Show me the way to go home" would get the message across. 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 Sep 15 10:06:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8F063S15363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 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 neodymium.btinternet.com (neodymium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8F05vt15359 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:05:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.198.200] (helo=D457300) by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13Zj0p-0001ny-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 01:05:52 +0100 Message-ID: <000d01c01ea8$9a3e7f60$c8c601d5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <009a01c01e01$b37d2e60$dfe436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <007d01c01e94$ad6f00a0$0200000a@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 01:05:03 +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 Hirsch wrote: > It appears that the issue of the grammatical construction of L12C1/L88 has > already been addressed by the LC. Not really. The LC's "interpretation" is simply an admission that the words of the Laws do not say what they were intended to say (cf L26A of blessed memory). Even if this interpretation is accepted, the problem remains that as the words on the page are written, you may still give 60% even if the pair's session average is higher. The words are: such contestant shall be awarded a minimum of 60% [...] or the percentage of matchpoints [...] if that percentage was greater than 60%. If I were to say: "You must give me an apple, or you must give me an orange", you could obey me by giving me an apple. If I were to say: "You must give me an apple, or if four is greater than two you must give me an orange", you could still obey me by giving me an apple. To achieve the effect I want, I would need to say: "If four is greater than two, you must give me an orange, otherwise you must give me an apple". Law 88 should, in my view, be amended accordingly. 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 Sep 15 10:11:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8F0BGr15390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:11:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8F0B6t15375 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:11:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.119] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13Zj5p-000Keo-00; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 01:11:01 +0100 Message-ID: <00b801c01ea9$8e1c4ea0$775608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Thomas Dehn" , "Bridge Laws" References: <000d01c01ba5$a3be85e0$5c5408c3@dodona> <008601c01c90$8ff2db60$375408c3@dodona> <19Ms+ABSajv5EwRj@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <39BF4AC7.5F103C@village.uunet.be> <019801c01e80$c1a5f560$d2291dc2@rabbit> Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal #3 Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 22:56:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 8:19 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal #3 > > However, I have the impression this AC failed to > work through the details of the hand after > the lead of a small club, and hence > I think this AC did a poor job. > > > Thomas, repeating himself > "Oh thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?" -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 15 10:11:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8F0BNg15396 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:11:23 +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 e8F0B8t15377 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:11:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.119] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13Zj5q-000Keo-00; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 01:11:03 +0100 Message-ID: <00b901c01ea9$8eed5a40$775608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Roger Pewick" , "blml" References: <3.0.6.32.20000909021322.008651e0@worldcom.ch> Subject: Re: [BLML] voided claim Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 23:27:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: blml Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 7:41 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] voided claim > ------------ \x/ --------- > > I have been reading the words of L68D. It makes clear that play > subsequent a claim is voided. However, it does not say here or anywhere > else that such subsequent play if it existed is not evidence > +=+ WBF LC Minute of 4th September 2000:- "At the request of an appeals committee chairman the Committee considered the circumstances of an appeal which had been adjudicated. A player had made a claim by showing his cards and informing defenders that on the basis of the known information he would make his contract through a double squeeze. His opponent had requested him to play out the cards and, in violation of Law 68D, declarer had done so. In the course of this he had become confused and misplayed a card. His opponents now challenged the claim on the basis that he had demonstrated he could be careless in executing the squeeze. The Director had declared the play of the cards subsequent to the claim to be void, and had determined that, as between expert players it was clear the statement of claim lacked nothing for clarity, the play of the squeeze being perfectly evident. When the matter had come to appeal the appeals committee had supported the Director in ignoring all play subsequent to the claim, and in finding that the statement of claim, each player respecting the abilities of the other, contained no flaw. The Laws Committee agreed that the voided play in such a situation is wholly null and shall not be given any attention in determining the validity of the claim. When the statement of claim is made an opponent who has any doubt about it must summon the Director at once; play must cease entirely. The questions of irrationality, inferiority and carelessness, must be judged in relation to the statement accompanying the claim and the lines of play that are not excluded by the statement. On the occasion in question the appeals committee found that the intended play was entirely clear from the statement, but in any case the continuation of the play of the cards was void and could not affect the issue. " ~ 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 Sep 15 10:11:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8F0BRr15397 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:11:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8F0BCt15386 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:11:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.119] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13Zj5s-000Keo-00; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 01:11:04 +0100 Message-ID: <00ba01c01ea9$8fd85680$775608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Peter Gill" , "Bridge Laws" References: <009a01c01e01$b37d2e60$dfe436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 23:46:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 5:10 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director > Hirsch Davis wrote: > >However, as a mitigating circumstance, I believe David > >Stevenson reported that the LC determined at Maastricht > >that a TD may not award greater than 60% unless a player's > >session average is higher. > > Reported where? On BLML or in the Daily Bulletins in Maastricht? > > Peter Gill. > +=+ WBFLC Minute of 30th August 2000.:- "The Committee addressed any situation when, as the result of an irregularity, a result cannot be obtained and an artificial adjusted score would normally be awarded. If a non-offending side would be disadvantaged by an award of average plus (60%, or higher where Law 88 allows) the Committee does not consider a higher percentage may be awarded under Law 12C1. If the circumstances allow the Director may assign a score under Law 12A1 or Law 84E." ~ 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 Sep 15 10:11:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8F0BUk15398 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:11:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8F0BCt15384 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:11:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.119] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13Zj5w-000Keo-00; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 01:11:08 +0100 Message-ID: <00bd01c01ea9$9254a120$775608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" , "Linda Trent" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastrict Appeal #3 Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 01:10:05 +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: Bridge Laws Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 9:40 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Maastrict Appeal #3 > I also firmly believe it is wrong for a scribe to add anything that was not > clearly stated during the hearing. Integrity goes out the window. Trust me, > I have learned this the hard way. I would be more amenable to a Chairman's > note after the fact if it were thought to be necessary. > +=+ Sagacious lady, Linda Trent, Why should they not such things invent As satiate with excess spurious The mordant hunger of the curious? For, if the force malevolent Inside our mind remains unspent, Will not the rage, increasing furious, Inflame the soul with fire injurious? +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 15 10:57:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8F0v0815437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:57:00 +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 e8F0ust15433 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:56:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.198.200] (helo=D457300) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13Zjo9-00059s-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 01:56:50 +0100 Message-ID: <003001c01eaf$b9007960$c8c601d5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastrict Appeal #3 Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 01:56:01 +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 Linda wrote: > My few cents worth... > > First and foremost: The report belongs to the Chairman. Period. If they did > not take proper time to review and edit, it's their problem. I am having some difficulty with this. I think that "they" and "their" refer to the singular noun "Chairman", but that the plural has been used in place of the singular in order to avoid gender-biased language (such as, for example, "Chairman"). But even if this surmise is correct, it seems to me that the report "belongs" to the bridge-playing public; if the decision of the Committee was ludicrous and / or the Chairman was an idiot, the report should enable its readers to deduce this, rather than being subject to "review and editing" by the above-mentioned idiot. Otherwise, what is the point? > It is also my personal opinion that either the Chairman should write the > report or the scribe should not be a member of the Committee. I would agree with the latter - the scribe has enough to do recording the various idiocies without being called upon to contribute to them. I would most emphatically disagree with the former - a report should be an objective account of what actually happened, written by a disinterested observer, not an account of what the Chair would have liked to see happen. One might as well say that newspaper reports of Parliamentary debates should be written by the Prime Minister, and not by a journalist. > However, after doing a few hundred of these things, and getting a fair load > of feedback over the last five years of casebooks, it is my view that a > scribe over time will learn to identify when things need to be clarified and > ask a simple "could you please explain how you arrived at that conclusion > for my report?" If what actually happened in the Maastricht case was that somebody said, "I think that NS should get about 7 IMPs", and everybody else said, "Yeah - that seems about right, given that the bar is closing soon", then this should have been reported in order that the bridge-playing public could infer that the decision of the Committee was ludicrous and that the Chairman was an idiot. If, on the other hand, somebody said, "I think that he'd have made six diamonds about four times out of five anyway, so let's give him roughly four fifths of the IMPs for making less a fifth of the IMPs for one down", and everybody else said, "Yeah - that seems about right", then this should have been reported in order that the bridge-playing public could infer that the decision of the Committee was Solomonic and that the Chairman had gone about his business in an entirely appropriate manner. But one or other of those things must have happened, in order to arrive at the (entirely sensible) award of 7 IMPs to North-South, and whichever it was, it should have been faithfully reported. Of course, if none of those things happened and the adjustment was along the lines of the Kaplan procedural penalty, then this also should have been reported in order that the bridge-playing public could infer that everyone involved ought to be shot. > I also firmly believe it is wrong for a scribe to add anything that was not > clearly stated during the hearing. Integrity goes out the window. Yes, but nor should a scribe embellish anything that was - how shall I put this? - elliptically stated during the hearing. > HermY will be an expert after he has done 500 or so more of these... :-) HermY already is an expert. He has been placed in the impossible position of being at once a faithful reporter of decisions and a decision-maker. This is not his fault, and he has discharged his infeasible task with his usual diligence and with honour. Of course, in undertaking the task in the first place, he has volunteered for the unenviable position of Person Whose Fault It All Is, and as a coach to international teams for a number of years now, I welcome him to the legion of the damned. 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 Sep 15 11:09:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8F19C615455 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 11:09:12 +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 e8F195t15451 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 11:09:06 +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 SAA30583; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 18:09:00 -0700 Message-Id: <200009150109.SAA30583@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 15 Sep 2000 01:05:03 PDT." <000d01c01ea8$9a3e7f60$c8c601d5@D457300> Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 18:09:02 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > If I were to say: "You must give me an apple, or you must give me an > orange", you could obey me by giving me an apple. If I were to say: > "You must give me an apple, or if four is greater than two you must > give me an orange", you could still obey me by giving me an apple. This is a nitpick, but I believe you're wrong here. If the Law book were a math text, you'd probably be right, since "or" in mathematics (at least in mathematical logic) generally means that either or both of the statements joined by "or" are true. But in English, "or" can have other meanings. In particular, a construct like "A, or if B then C" means something like "A is true, except in the circumstances where B is true, in which case we ignore A and assert C instead." It would be as if I said "You can take Alicia Parkway to get to my house, or if Alicia is blocked off, then turn left on Muirlands and right on Los Alisos instead." The implication here is that if the special condition applies (i.e. Alicia is blocked), then the first part of the sentence (you can take Alicia Parkway to my house) is no longer true (obviously, unless you feel like driving through a roadblock and perhaps on the sidewalk)---it's not the case that "or" here means that either one (or both) can be true. > To achieve the effect I want, I would need to say: "If four is greater > than two, you must give me an orange, otherwise you must give me an > apple". This wording is probably clearer than the first example. But I think their meanings are equivalent. -- 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 Sep 15 11:37:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8F1beP15477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 11:37:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8F1bYt15473 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 11:37:35 +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 <20000915013730.SFLZ1384.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 18:37:30 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] What does the fast pass over skip bid demonstrably suggests? Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 18:39:42 -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) In-reply-to: <200009081350.JAA00127@cfa183.harvard.edu> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > I doubt you will find one in a "top level" tournament; good players bid > in tempo after skip bids. I wouldn't be surprised to find a 'fast > pass' case in one of the ACBL books, although I don't recall any > offhand. > -- The only one I can recall that comes close is Orlando 23 - where there was an alleged fast 4S bid which may have discouraged partner from bidding on in the auction: 2C - 3C 3S - 4C 4S - P Don't recall any fast passes... 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 Sep 15 13:57:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8F3v7E15542 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:57:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8F3v1t15538 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:57:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivet1u.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.116.62]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA23994 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 23:56:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000914235644.01402c90@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 23:56:44 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more 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 01:13 PM 9/14/2000 +1000, Richard wrote: > >Take this sequence: 1NT - 2C (Simple Stayman, requesting partner to bid a >major or 2D with neither) - Pass (a gambling refusal of the request, >holding a minimum with clubs). The Pass cannot be regulated by the SO as >it is a natural call. Wanna bet? The fact is that the de facto capacity of the SO to regulate all manner of natural bidding has been largely conceded, and that there is no practical disincentive to these organizations from arbitrarly abusing this authority, while claiming that it is their right to do so under L40D. In this particular example, the ACBL (if it was so inclined, and why not?) could cheerfully point out that the pass is subject to regulation, as a _response_ to a convention. In fact any call occurring subsequent to a convention, or prior to a convention, or that others might use as a convention, or that took place at a convention of bridge players, could well be subject to regulation, under the ludicrously broad reading that the ACBL has made of their authority in this regard. And don't look to the WBFLC for relief! Grattan, for one, has made it quite clear that this "interpretation" of L40D is perfectly fine with the members of that body. There are two plausible explanations for this spineless deference. The first is a practical appreciation of the ultimate impotence of the WBFLC in enforcing adherence to the Laws outside of their own events. The ACBL could decide that diamonds outrank hearts or that only odd-level bids could be made, and the WBFLC would have no real leverage to overturn such a decision. But I think that a more basic problem is a fundamental philosophical viewpoint held by those who write the Laws. Grattan (and, one presumes, his colleagues) has made no secret of his view that the Laws are fundamentally _restrictive_ with respect to players' actions, and fundamentally _permissive_ with respect to the actions of SO's, TD's and AC's. That is, players only have rights that are explicitly granted to them under the Laws, and actions outside of those are to be deemed un-lawful, while the actions of the game's ruling authorities are presumed lawful unless in direct and undeniable conflict with the Laws. Thus, you and I may read L40D as restricting the rights of SO's to regulate non-conventional bids, but in the strictest sense, it does not actually say that. Its only explicit effect is to confer a right to regulate some bids, and the limits on that right are vague to the point of insignificance. 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 Sep 15 14:56:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8F4ts015570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 14:55:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8F4tot15566 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 14:55:50 +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 OAA04689 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 14:51:23 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 15:51:58 +0000 (EST) Subject: RE: [BLML] What does the fast pass over skip bid demonstrably suggests? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 15:53:19 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 15/09/2000 03:49:01 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Linda Trent wrote: "The only one I can recall that comes close is Orlando 23 - where there was an alleged fast 4S bid which may have discouraged partner from bidding on in the auction: 2C - 3C 3S - 4C 4S - P" Some years ago, Eric Kokish participated in Australia's National Open Teams. I had the privilege to play against him in a match in the qualifying Swiss. On one board (where only we were vul) pard opened 1H and RHO (Eric's partner) overcalled 4S. Australia does not have a STOP!/compulsory pause regulation. In accordance with L73A2 and L73D I now called 5H in my usual quick tempo. All passed, and 5H made 11 tricks. When Kokish saw my dummy, he was unhappy, as I had *exactly* the values to justify my 5H call, rather than a little bit more. He complained that pard's losing option to continue to 6H was less likely after a quick 5H. However, the TD was not summoned since I had not bid *faster* than my usual tempo. Is "bidding in unvaring tempo" (assuming a compulsory pause reg is not applicable) a fixed constant? Or would it be more ethical to use the formula "normal tempo multiplied by extrinsic difficulty in selecting a call equals unvaring tempo"? Best wishes R -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 15 15:21:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8F5L2C15605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 15:21:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from trex.uia.net (trex.uia.net [207.67.175.26]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8F5Kut15601 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 15:20:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from uia.net (171.uia.palm.cyberg8t.com [207.67.173.171]) by trex.uia.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA17172; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 22:20:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <39C1B2F5.2BC06C57@uia.net> Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 22:26:13 -0700 From: Irv Kostal X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Burn CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Singing in petto (was : Compulsory Pause over Preempt) References: <00c301c01e3e$beea36c0$b2e236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <000501c01ea5$c83c3540$c8c601d5@D457300> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Then there's the Sigmund Romberg story. It seems he counted trumps out loud, and one day his partner realized Sigmund has miscounted the trump and one was still lurking about. He tried humming the tune of Romberg's song, "One Alone" but Sigmund went on his merry way and the contract failed. After the hand his partner complained, saying, "Sigmund, I was humming your tune, "One Alone!" How could you not figure it out?" Romberg is supposed to have replied, "Who knows from lyrics?" Irv David Burn wrote: > Peter wrote: > > > Singing out loud is dodgy too. Not common yet, but ... :) > > Oh, I don't know. No need for Lightner doubles any more - just sing a > few lead-directing songs. "Diamonds are a girl's best friend", "Hearts > of Oak"... Moreover, there would be no more need for acrimonious post > mortems. A few bars of "Show me the way to go home" would get the > message across. > > 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 Fri Sep 15 16:27:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8F6QtL15636 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 16:26:56 +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 e8F6Qpt15632 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 16:26:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id wa301440 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 16:25:25 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-221-18.tmns.net.au ([203.54.221.18]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-Self-Aware-MailRouter V2.9b 13/7775204); 15 Sep 2000 16:25:23 Message-ID: <00dd01c01e81$98d0a940$71d736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 05:25:52 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ WBFLC Minute of 30th August 2000.:- >"The Committee addressed any situation when, as the >result of an irregularity, a result cannot be obtained >and an artificial adjusted score would normally be >awarded. If a non-offending side would be disadvantaged >by an award of average plus (60%, or higher where >Law 88 allows) the Committee does not consider a >higher percentage may be awarded under Law 12C1. >If the circumstances allow the Director may assign >a score under Law 12A1 or Law 84E." Is the possibility of a Director going via Law 12A2 to Law 88, and awarding say 85%, deliberately omitted? (not an unlikely scenario, given that Law 12A2 directly refers the Director to Law 88). 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 Sep 15 16:27:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8F6Rrc15648 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 16:27:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from praseodumium.btinternet.com (praseodumium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.82]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8F6Rlt15644 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 16:27:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.198.200] (helo=D457300) by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13ZoyM-00078o-00; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 07:27:42 +0100 Message-ID: <008f01c01edd$f1fa6ae0$c8c601d5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Cc: References: <200009150109.SAA30583@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 07:26:53 +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 Adam wrote: > > David Burn wrote: > > > If I were to say: "You must give me an apple, or you must give me an > > orange", you could obey me by giving me an apple. If I were to say: > > "You must give me an apple, or if four is greater than two you must > > give me an orange", you could still obey me by giving me an apple. > > This is a nitpick, but I believe you're wrong here. > If the Law book > were a math text, you'd probably be right, since "or" in mathematics > (at least in mathematical logic) generally means that either or both > of the statements joined by "or" are true. The Law book should be a math text, or the equivalent in clarity, because: > But in English, "or" can > have other meanings. Yes, I know. People play bridge in France, and Russia, and China, and (judging by the most recent Olympiad) Botswana and Martinique. We expect those people to play by "the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge", which is to say that we expect the bridge federations of France, and Russia, and China, and Botswana, and indeed Martinique, to play the game by exactly that code of Laws that we use in England or the good old US of A. Now, if we expect this, it is our clear duty to formulate the Laws in such a fashion that they can with equal facility be translated into French, Russian, Chinese, Botswanaian and Martiniquan. We should not present the Bridge Federation of Botswana with a text in which "or can have alternative meanings" and expect the Botswanians to turn up in Maastricht playing the game the way we think it ought to be played. But we do. > In particular, a construct like "A, or if B then > C" means something like "A is true, except in the circumstances where > B is true, in which case we ignore A and assert C instead." Something like. Adam, you and I are IT people or at any rate quasi-logicians who could argue this stuff till the cows come home. We should not have to. The Laws of any game ought to be constructed so that there is never any argument about what ought to happen. But if that were so, I would not have sent this message, and you would not have received it. > > To achieve the effect I want, I would need to say: "If four is greater > > than two, you must give me an orange, otherwise you must give me an > > apple". > > This wording is probably clearer than the first example. But I think > their meanings are equivalent. They are not. But try spotting it. 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 Sep 15 16:37:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8F6bE215660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 16:37:14 +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 e8F6bAt15656 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 16:37:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id za301781 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 16:37:27 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-221-18.tmns.net.au ([203.54.221.18]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-Uncompromising-MailRouter V2.9b 13/7779167); 15 Sep 2000 16:37:26 Message-ID: <00e601c01e83$47cf7060$71d736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] What does the fast pass over skip bid demonstrably suggests? Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 05:37:54 +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 Richard Hills wrote: >Some years ago, Eric Kokish participated in Australia's >National Open Teams. I had the privilege to play against >him in a match in the qualifying Swiss. On one board >(where only we were vul) pard opened 1H and RHO >(Eric's partner) overcalled 4S. Australia does not have >a STOP!/compulsory pause regulation. In accordance >with L73A2 and L73D I now called 5H in my usual quick >tempo. All passed, and 5H made 11 tricks. > >When Kokish saw my dummy, he was unhappy, as I had >*exactly* the values to justify my 5H call, rather than a little >bit more. He complained that pard's losing option to >continue to 6H was less likely after a quick 5H. >However, the TD was not summoned since I had not bid >*faster* than my usual tempo. > >Is "bidding in unvaring tempo" (assuming a compulsory >pause reg is not applicable) a fixed constant? Or would >it be more ethical to use the formula "normal tempo >multiplied by extrinsic difficulty in selecting a call equals >unvarying tempo"? My impression from playing against Richard many times is that he is one of those quick-thinking people who bids and plays in a uniform very fast tempo. I cannot imagine that such people should have to unnecessarily prolong their actions, when their initial style is totally consistent with the requirements of the Laws. Personally I think the bridge world has gone a bit nuts about this "deliberately slowing the tempo" concept. I can't remember if I recently read something about players with screens being expected to slow the tempo on purpose, but if I did, then this trend is IMO changing the very fabric of a game which has thrived for decades, to the detriment of the game. Should we rename Bridge (formerly Auction Bridge then Contract Bridge) in the new millenium as Slow Bridge? 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 Sep 15 17:51:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8F7pQn15700 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 17:51:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8F7pLt15696 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 17:51:21 +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 e8F7pLK19985 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 18:51:21 +1100 (EST) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 18:51:19 +1100 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@medvesajt.anu.edu.au To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] What does the fast pass over skip bid demonstrably suggests? In-Reply-To: <00e601c01e83$47cf7060$71d736cb@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, 15 Sep 2000, Peter Gill wrote: > Personally I think the bridge world has gone a bit nuts > about this "deliberately slowing the tempo" concept. > I can't remember if I recently read something about > players with screens being expected to slow the tempo > on purpose, but if I did, then this trend is IMO changing > the very fabric of a game which has thrived for decades, > to the detriment of the game. Call me a literalist, but the trend seems to have the backing of the FLB. > Should we rename Bridge (formerly Auction Bridge then > Contract Bridge) in the new millenium as Slow Bridge? > > Peter Gill > Australia. This may be necessary if we cannot a) change a majority of the people who play bridge, or b) change the rules by which they are expected to play, or c) change our expectations of players by admitting more flexibility to some of those rules. 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 Sep 15 17:59:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8F7xGf15713 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 17:59:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8F7xAt15709 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 17:59:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.117] (d185fca75.rochester.rr.com [24.95.202.117]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA02047; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 03:54:26 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 03:51:27 -0400 To: "Todd Zimnoch" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 1:52 PM -0700 9/14/00, Todd Zimnoch wrote: >That only defines by law whether a bid is or is not considered a >convention. Give the convention a name and you must include the >entire response structure. Um. So, if I call my 2C response to my partner's 1NT opening "Stayman," then the definition of "Stayman" includes the entire sructure of responses to that bid, right? What about further bids? And *which* responding structure? (I know of several similar, but slightly different ones). Aside from that, in the ACBL, at least, it is a violation of regulations to refer to a convention solely by its name. If an opponent asks me what my partner's 2C response to my 1NT opening means, "Stayman" is not a sufficient answer. "Artificial, asking if I have a 4 card major, any strength" *is* a sufficient answer. Note it says nothing about what my responses to 2C might be. > If my partner and I agree to play multi, that agreement includes >the standard responses. Otherwise, the convention we are playing is >something other that Multi. Likewise, Jacoby 2NT where the 3-level >responses are long suits and the 4-level responses are singletons or >voids is no longer Jacoby 2NT, but more like Variations on a Theme >by Jacoby. By this logic, if you have agreed with your partner to play "Stayman," you must be using the responses originally proposed by Sam Stayman in his writeup of the convention, what, some 50 or more years ago? I may be mistaken, but I don't think *anybody* plays Stayman quite as he described it any more. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOcHWyr2UW3au93vOEQKFVgCcDRUFtVqXOpeYn/5eAyrLPfvvfhcAoIzs djXJygCH3H0EAyXPTEFb9lkn =RWv+ -----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 Sep 15 18:18:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8F8INP15735 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 18:18:23 +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 e8F8IGt15731 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 18:18:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.87] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13ZqhE-000Pye-00; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 09:18:08 +0100 Message-ID: <006301c01eed$9ab353e0$575908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" , "David Burn" References: <003001c01eaf$b9007960$c8c601d5@D457300> Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastrict Appeal #3 Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 09:16:30 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 1:56 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastrict Appeal #3 > But even if this surmise is > correct, it seems to me that the report "belongs" to the > bridge-playing public > +=+ In my view the report is not that of a journalist present in a council chamber, but a report by the committee of its findings and decisions in private deliberations. These are furnished with a summary of key information intended to help an understanding of the basis of the adjudication. The task of the scribe is to draft the report and to publish it after such amendment as the chairman may require. It is the chairman who is responsible for the accuracy of the report and for the extent to which it reveals the content of the private discussion in committee. +=+ --------- \x/ -------- > I would agree with the latter - the scribe has enough to do recording > the various idiocies +=+ 'Recording' suggests more than is asked of the scribe. He is not taking a court reporter's note of proceedings. +=+ --------- \x/ -------- > > If what actually happened in the Maastricht case was that somebody > said, "I think that NS should get about 7 IMPs", and everybody else > said, "Yeah - that seems about right, given that the bar is closing > soon", then this should have been reported in order that the > bridge-playing public could infer that the decision of the Committee > was ludicrous and that the Chairman was an idiot. > +=+ This was not what happened. How the bar comes into it I do not know. I had difficulty in Maastricht in finding a bar that was closed at any hour. +=+ > > If, on the other hand, somebody said, "I think that he'd have made six > diamonds about four times out of five anyway, so let's give him > roughly four fifths of the IMPs for making less a fifth of the IMPs > for one down", and everybody else said, "Yeah - that seems about > right", then this should have been reported in order that the > bridge-playing public could infer that the decision of the Committee > was Solomonic and that the Chairman had gone about his business in an > entirely appropriate manner. > +=+ And maybe someone offered a slightly different % and someone else rounded these in imps and the committee (with whatever speed) agreed to put its decision in the latter terms? +=+ > But one or other of those things must have happened, in order to > arrive at the (entirely sensible) award of 7 IMPs to North-South, and > whichever it was, it should have been faithfully reported. > +=+ 'should have been' ? this is an opinion of what detail is desirable, not a requirement laid upon the committee. +=+ > > Of course, > if none of those things happened and the adjustment was along the > lines of the Kaplan procedural penalty, ------------- \x/ --------------- +=+ This it was certainly not. The guidelines for appeals committees in M'cht were to express any penalties separately from the adjusted scores. The adjusted scores were to reflect equity existing in the instant prior to the irregularity. I had expressed preference for this approach in my pre-tournament comments to the CoP Group and, surprisingly therefore, it was adopted by the TAC here. +=+ > ----------- \x/ -------- > HermY already is an expert. He has been placed in the impossible > position of being at once a faithful reporter of decisions and a > decision-maker. > +=+ But he is not in control of what appears in the report. The Chairman is. That is laid down. ~ 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 Sep 15 18:27:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8F8RBO15748 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 18:27:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8F8R4t15744 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 18:27:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis194.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.194]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.1999.06.13.00.20) with ESMTP id <0G0X0036Z62Y9Z@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:25:49 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:25:39 +0200 From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director In-reply-to: <00ba01c01ea9$8fd85680$775608c3@dodona> X-Sender: bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de To: Bridge Laws Message-id: <4.3.2.7.0.20000915102349.00b02890@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <009a01c01e01$b37d2e60$dfe436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > Hirsch Davis wrote: > > >However, as a mitigating circumstance, I believe David > > >Stevenson reported that the LC determined at Maastricht > > >that a TD may not award greater than 60% unless a player's > > >session average is higher. > > > > Reported where? On BLML or in the Daily Bulletins in Maastricht? > > > > Peter Gill. > > >+=+ WBFLC Minute of 30th August 2000.:- >"The Committee addressed any situation when, as the >result of an irregularity, a result cannot be obtained >and an artificial adjusted score would normally be >awarded. If a non-offending side would be disadvantaged >by an award of average plus (60%, or higher where >Law 88 allows) the Committee does not consider a >higher percentage may be awarded under Law 12C1. >If the circumstances allow the Director may assign >a score under Law 12A1 or Law 84E." > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ What is meant by "if the circumstances allows the director." Does ist mean, that the requirements of 12A1 or 84E had to be fulfilled? In that case the sentence would be superfluous I guess. But if this is not the interpretation, my question is still: what is meant by "circumstances"? 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 Fri Sep 15 18:37:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8F8b9b15760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 18:37:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8F8b3t15756 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 18:37:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.110.13] (helo=D457300) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13ZqzQ-0004Xk-00; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 09:36:56 +0100 Message-ID: <000501c01eef$ffe21ec0$0d6e073e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: "Grattan Endicott" Cc: "Bridge Laws" References: <003001c01eaf$b9007960$c8c601d5@D457300> <006301c01eed$9ab353e0$575908c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastrict Appeal #3 Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 09:36:06 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn > " Write the vision and make it plain upon the tables" > - Habakkuk > uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu A noble sentiment. But: > +=+ But he is not in control of what appears > in the report. The Chairman is. That is laid down. this appears to me to be entirely at variance with it. Maybe it should not, but there was a chap called Luke Hansard, who... 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 Fri Sep 15 19:16:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8F9G2915787 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 19:16:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f198.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.198]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8F9Ftt15783 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 19:15:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 02:15:48 -0700 Received: from 172.159.210.214 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 09:15:48 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.159.210.214] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 02:15:48 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Sep 2000 09:15:48.0440 (UTC) FILETIME=[8938DD80:01C01EF5] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Ed Reppert >At 1:52 PM -0700 9/14/00, Todd Zimnoch wrote: > >That only defines by law whether a bid is or is not considered a > >convention. Give the convention a name and you must include the > >entire response structure. > >Um. So, if I call my 2C response to my partner's 1NT opening >"Stayman," then the definition of "Stayman" includes the entire >sructure of responses to that bid, right? What about further bids? >And *which* responding structure? (I know of several similar, but >slightly different ones). Aside from that, in the ACBL, at least, it >is a violation of regulations to refer to a convention solely by its >name. In practise, what do you see happen? >If an >opponent asks me what my partner's 2C response to my 1NT opening >means, "Stayman" is not a sufficient answer. "Artificial, asking if I >have a 4 card major, any strength" *is* a sufficient answer. Note it >says nothing about what my responses to 2C might be. I have *never* heard such an explanation at the table, not for Stayman. For puppet stayman I've heard to the effect, "asking me to bid my 5 card major, if I have one," implying that 2H/2S will be a five-card major. But that's a minor, excusable gaff. 1H - P - 4C "alert" ? "splinter" "ok" is a far more common dialog. > > If my partner and I agree to play multi, that agreement includes > >the standard responses. Otherwise, the convention we are playing is > >something other that Multi. Likewise, Jacoby 2NT where the 3-level > >responses are long suits and the 4-level responses are singletons or > >voids is no longer Jacoby 2NT, but more like Variations on a Theme > >by Jacoby. > >By this logic, if you have agreed with your partner to play >"Stayman," you must be using the responses originally proposed by Sam >Stayman in his writeup of the convention, what, some 50 or more years >ago? I may be mistaken, but I don't think *anybody* plays Stayman >quite as he described it any more. And "I'm gay as a bird" has not had a makeover in meaning in the past 50 years either. (And judging by the media, "begs the question" no longer means what I thought.) I and everyone I've played with have never been confused by agreeing, nothing else said, to play "Stayman." I hope you aren't having a problem and have to invest time detailing a convention which is so well-known by such a short name. -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 Fri Sep 15 20:07:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8FA7FJ15817 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 20:07:16 +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 (f10.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8FA79t15813 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 20:07:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 03:07:02 -0700 Received: from 172.159.210.214 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:07:02 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.159.210.214] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 03:07:02 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Sep 2000 10:07:02.0421 (UTC) FILETIME=[B1752450:01C01EFC] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson >Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > 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. Sorry for the awful delay in answering this one. I've been conducting an informal survey and an incident at the club tonight got a decent bit of input as well. My LHO wanted to bid 3H at some point, but pulled 4H instead. My partner has not made any call his cell phone rings (his wife is expectant) and when he answers, my LHO notices her mistake and makes a small jump. While everyone else is distracted by the phone, she asks me, "I don't know if I'm allowed to change this?" We wait for the director. The director explains the situation as we've seen in this thread. My LHO can change her inadvertant call regardless of what my partner does and my partner gets to take back his bid. She changed her bid and it was obvious to everyone at the table that 4H was a mistake. At the very least, the Law is being applied correctly in this area. I asked the director what she'd do if when after an inadvertant call, her LHO does something other than pass. "I suck a tooth and swallow it." I love this woman. :) So, my take on what happens around here. The Law would be properly applied. There's a whole bunch of players who wouldn't attempt to correct an inadvertant bid after LHO makes a bid and a-whole-nother bunch of players who didn't know that you could do such a thing, but are likely going to follow the lead of the previous group. If LHO has not called or has passed, it's fair game, but my particular opponent tonight didn't think she could. In the situation where partner's alert brings your attention to your mechanical-error misbid, the limited opinion I have is split. For what it's worth, the people I play with at Intel (all under 30) are unanimously against being allowed to change the inadvertant bid and don't. But the club players are split. They're more likely to change an opening bid (e.g., announced "12-14 1NT" when you meant to open 1S) than otherwise when it's not so obvious that you haven't forgotten your system. -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 Fri Sep 15 20:15:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8FAEMj15835 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 20:14:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8FAEIt15831 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 20:14:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.101.77]) by mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20000915101438.ULMS641613.mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 22:14:38 +1200 Message-ID: <056601c01efc$f5159c80$206860cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 22:08:11 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > If my partner and I agree to play multi, that agreement includes the > standard responses. Otherwise, the convention we are playing is something > other that Multi. Likewise, Jacoby 2NT where the 3-level responses are long > suits and the 4-level responses are singletons or voids is no longer Jacoby > 2NT, but more like Variations on a Theme by Jacoby. > Interesting view but you have to discard the definition of convention in the Laws to hold that view. A view that is consistent with the definition in the laws is that: Multi 2d (or 2c or whatever) is a convention showing certain types of hands and the conventional responses (standard) of 2h/s/nt are three separate conventions. Unfortunately for those who want to over-regulate a pass of a convention 2h response to a conventional 2d opening is not conventional and so not able to be regulated legally. In practice the regulators ignor their own regulations. One can only sit and wonder at their motives. Wayne Burrows -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 15 20:19:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8FAJft15847 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 20:19:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8FAJYt15843 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 20:19:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id MAA00016 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 12:19:30 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Sep 15 12:20:55 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JU79VQHFCU001ANF@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 12:19:16 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 12:16:22 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 12:19:14 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Board spoiled by director To: "'David Burn'" , Bridge Laws Cc: adam@irvine.com Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6A4@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 I were to say: "You must give me an apple, or you must give me > an > > > orange", you could obey me by giving me an apple. If I were to > say: > > > "You must give me an apple, or if four is greater than two you > must > > > give me an orange", you could still obey me by giving me an apple. > > > > This is a nitpick, but I believe you're wrong here. > > > > > To achieve the effect I want, I would need to say: "If four is > greater > > > than two, you must give me an orange, otherwise you must give me > an > > > apple". > > > > This wording is probably clearer than the first example. But I > think > > their meanings are equivalent. > I think so too. Language is not and can't be reigned by strictly logistic rules. And since laws need to be expressed in a language they can't be judged by just logistic rules either. There is no good reason to use 'you must give me an apple, or if 4 is greater than 2 you must give me an orange' when we want to say 'you must give me an apple or an orange'. And so interpretation leads to the conclusion that 'or' in the first statement is meant to be exclusive. And interpretation in the second statement is more difficult, since there is no real clue that the instruction is not obeyed when both are given. Though in real life, when I offer an orange in my left and an apple in my right hand it probably would cause a surprise when both are taken. Not with David, who gentily would give back one after explaining why he took both. ton > They are not. But try spotting it. > > 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 Sep 15 21:43:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8FBhBJ15886 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:43:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8FBh4t15882 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:43:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.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 e8FBh0J68668 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 07:43:00 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000915074157.00b30ba0@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, 15 Sep 2000 07:44:05 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20000914080035.00ab02d0@127.0.0.1> References: <39bf9752.1ee8.0@btinternet.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 08:15 AM 9/14/00, I wrote: L12C1 requires the award of "average plus (at least 60%...)... (see... Law 88...)". L88 calls for adjusted score of "a minimum of 60%... or the percentage... earned on boards actually played during the session". The debate seems to have moved on to whether "minimum of 60%... or the percentage... earned" actually means "the lesser of 60%... or..." or "at least the lesser of...". I don't have a position on this at this point, and am eagerly hoping to read some good arguments and formulate one. ...in which I twice used "lesser" when I meant "greater". Oops; sorry (goes into hide-in-the-corner mode). 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 Sep 15 23:34:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8FDXQF16005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 23:33:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8FDXJt16001 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 23:33:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA07680 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 09:35:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200009151335.JAA07680@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Another disputed beer claim, and administrivia Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 09:35:40 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Note: farebrother.cx (or at least the machine acting as maildrop for it) was down for the last two days. It's back up now (with the problem unfixed :-( ) and the messages are trickling in. I probably haven't lost any messages - they're just doing the Aussie Shuffle, eh? - but if there's anything you've sent that I *must* see, please resend to me? ObBLML: South is in 4H, and the position is: -- -- Q Tx T -- -- T -- K7 Qx -- K 9 -- x with the lead in dummy. Declarer claims one of the last three tricks, for down 1. This is obviously accepted, but E still wants to know how declarer would choose to play it. Now, disputed claims are to be adjudged with all doubts going to the non-offending side, but what if one member of the NOs' interests is served by leading a club, and the other by leading a diamond? Obviously, I'm not completely serious here, but there's a beer involved, and I figured it was a convenient post to hang the "no connection" note on. Michael (still peeved he didn't ruff out the diamond). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 16 01:42:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8FFftO16056 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 01:41:55 +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 e8FFfmt16052 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 01:41:49 +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 RAA17581; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 17:40:12 +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 RAA04908; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 17:41:19 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000915175125.008617e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 17:51:25 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] ruling from Anaheim Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear blmlists, I read the mitutes of the Anaheim appeals. Appeal #5 astonished me. To cut a long story short, the AC has stated that there was no LA to bidding a grand slam that could still be on a finesse. Can somebody explain why they did so ? Regards, 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 Sat Sep 16 03:00:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8FH06s16108 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 03:00:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8FGxvt16090 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 02:59:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA10751; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 09:59:53 -0700 Message-Id: <200009151659.JAA10751@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] ruling from Anaheim In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 15 Sep 2000 17:51:25 PDT." <3.0.6.32.20000915175125.008617e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 09:59:53 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Dear blmlists, > > I read the mitutes of the Anaheim appeals. > Appeal #5 astonished me. > > To cut a long story short, the AC has stated that there was no LA to > bidding a grand slam that could still be on a finesse. > > Can somebody explain why they did so ? The Daily Bulletin that contains this appeal is at ftp://209.45.144.70/nabc/2000sum-anaheim/anatxt08.txt I think you cut the long story too short; the phrase "grand slam that could still be on a finesse" doesn't really tell the story. From West's point of view, except for a "small sample" of hands that makes 7H unmakable, the *worst* *case* is for East to have a hand that makes the grand slam dependent on a finesse (a finesse that should be a lot better than 50% because of the preempt). There are a significant number of East hands where the grand is cold or excellent. The committee probably figured that, from West's point of view and computing a probability based on all the possible East hands, there was about a 75-80% that 7H would make, and therefore should be bid, especially in this high-level event. I'm not judging whether the committee made the right decision here, only trying to explain why it's plausible. -- 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 Sep 16 03:41:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8FHejP16153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 03:40:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8FHect16149 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 03:40:39 +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 NAA21991 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:42:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200009151742.NAA21991@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastrict Appeal #3 Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <003001c01eaf$b9007960$c8c601d5@D457300> References: <003001c01eaf$b9007960$c8c601d5@D457300> Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:42:56 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 15 September 2000 at 1:56, "David Burn" wrote: >it seems to me that the report "belongs" to the >bridge-playing public; if the decision of the Committee was ludicrous >and / or the Chairman was an idiot, the report should enable its >readers to deduce this, rather than being subject to "review and >editing" by the above-mentioned idiot. Otherwise, what is the point? > Two small comments. First, in particular, the report "belongs" to future ACs - the WBFLC's goal of creating a "collection of jurisprudence" from high-level events to supplement their CoP and Laws makes it so. Second, The Chairman need not be an idiot. In fact, I would stake very much on the fact that no top-level AC Chairman (of whatever gender) is an idiot. The Chairman may be ignorant of the Laws, or ignorant of the calibre of play in the game from whence comes the appeal (and this misjudgement goes both high and low), or ignorant of the duties required by the position. All of these need to be in the open, so that those who know what the Chairman is ignorant of can educate. My concern is more sinister (as it should be, left-handed as I am) than ignorance or idiocy. There is at least one AC Chairman who has a reputation (deserved or not) of ruling according to his personal biases, even when they are in conflict with the Laws, that fact he is certainly not ignorant of. Ok, so we all know who I'm talking about here, but there may be others we don't know about, and imprecise and incomplete reporting can hide this as well as other, more innocuous problems. Linda Trent: >> It is also my personal opinion that either the Chairman should write >>the report or the scribe should not be a member of the Committee. > Unfortunately, it is difficult enough to find Bridge Lawyers (in the good sense) enough to fill top-level ACs without disallowing those who are competent enough to Scribe at them. Back to David Burn: > >HermY already is an expert. He has been placed in the impossible >position of being at once a faithful reporter of decisions and a >decision-maker. This is not his fault, and he has discharged his >infeasible task with his usual diligence and with honour. Of course, >in undertaking the task in the first place, he has volunteered for the >unenviable position of Person Whose Fault It All Is, and as a coach to >international teams for a number of years now, I welcome him to the >legion of the damned. As a User Interface developer (expert or otherwise), I thank David for iterating my feelings about my work perfectly, and am very welcome of both he and HdW for the company. 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 Sep 16 03:42:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8FHgT516170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 03:42:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8FHgMt16166 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 03:42:23 +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 NAA22055 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:44:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200009151744.NAA22055@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Singing in petto (was : Compulsory Pause over Preempt) Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <00c301c01e3e$beea36c0$b2e236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> References: <00c301c01e3e$beea36c0$b2e236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:44:45 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 14 September 2000 at 21:27, "Peter Gill" wrote: [or rather, signed] > >Peter Gill >Sydney the Olympic City > Let me offer my condolences now, then, and wish you the best of luck for the next two weeks. Michael Farebrother Survivor of Calgary '88. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 16 03:57:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8FHvTR16184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 03:57:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8FHvLt16180 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 03:57:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA22639 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:59:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200009151759.NAA22639@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastrict Appeal #3 Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <00aa01c01e3d$b3040f80$b2e236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> References: <00aa01c01e3d$b3040f80$b2e236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:59:43 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 14 September 2000 at 21:19, "Peter Gill" wrote: >Linda Trent wrote: >>... ps. Hermy - i never got my second beer card beer! >>Wait 'til you see how many you owe me with inflation!! > >In my circles you lose all rights to beer cards if you inadvertently >play the Chairman card instead of the President card. > >:))) :- >Drinkers can go to www.nswba.com.au/youth/ybeer.html >to see the basic Amendments to the Laws of Contract Bridge, > Man, you Aussies must either be richer, crazier or more alcohol-tolerant[1] than us poor Canucks - even the Engineers[2] among us. Up here, we have two other requirements (and don't double or redouble). 1) Your line of play must be a reasonable line of play for the maximum tricks. You may not deliberately concede tricks simply to make the beer. (but Beer Squeezes, Beer safety plays (provided they are safety plays for the contract, not just the beer), and so on are legal). 1.1) Attempting to go for the beer, and conceding an unnecessary trick in the process, even if the contract is made/defeated, penalty: 1 beer to partner. 2) A beer may not be claimed by making an undoubled diamond contract short of slam. It's just too easy. Defensive beers in diamond contracts are allowed, however - and often the sweetest[3]. Unfortunately, the UWBC beer page (linked off the NSWBA page) has been mislaid - I shall attempt to find it, if it is recoverable. Michael (0-1 for the term. And last night, I had to use the D7 to get to hand with the D8, to take the heart finesse to make my contract, playing D10 to trick 13. I was not amused). [1] Or, if your country's reputation is correct, all three. [2] of whom it is recorded "We can, we can, we can, we can demolish forty beers". [3] My favourite was the one I scored in a Crazy Bridge game, where the rule on the hand was "*second-highest* card played to the trick wins the trick." The last play to 3Dx was D7, D8, spade, club, for down 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 Sat Sep 16 04:07:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8FI7Xe16200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 04:07:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8FI7Rt16196 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 04:07:28 +1000 (EST) Received: by esebh02nok with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) id ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:07:23 +0300 Message-ID: From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com To: adam@tameware.com, fsb@worldcom.ch Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Maastrict Appeals online Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:07:22 +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 Adam Wildavsky [mailto:adam@tameware.com] > Sent: 14. September 2000 22:28 > To: Yvan Calame > Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastrict Appeals online > > > At 7:03 PM +0200 9/14/00, Yvan Calame wrote: > >Maastrict Appeals are online at: > > > >http://home.worldcom.ch/fsb/appealse.html > > These appear to be the cases that made it into the daily bulletin. > Two of those that did not, the Sweden-Austria appeals, were posted > recently to rec.games.bridge. All appeals from all international events can be found at http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/appealse.html 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 Sep 16 04:18:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8FIILm16218 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 04:18:21 +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 (calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8FIIDt16214 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 04:18:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA23394 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 14:20:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200009151820.OAA23394@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] did insufficient to protect his own back ? Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <3.0.6.32.20000914121812.0085f100@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <3.0.6.32.20000914121812.0085f100@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 14:20:35 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 14 September 2000 at 12:18, alain gottcheiner wrote: >At 10:56 13/09/00 PDT, you [Adam, I think, about me] wrote: >> >>I realize you're probably being half-facetious here, or at least 42.3% >>facetious, but I think this last is wrong. > True, I was being facetious. And I probably am wrong. But any request *for information about the call*, no matter how expressed, requires full explanation. >AG : slightly less than that, because when I do ask some specific question, >I have good reasons. When I ask to the partner-alerter of the 1C opener 'is >it forcing ?', I don't mean anything else than 'is it forcing ?', because >we play Crash-like defences to all forcing clubs, not to nonforcing ones, >even if artificial. Which is exactly why the regulation is written that way. If you ask what 1C is, you get the whole thing. If all you wanted was "is it forcing", and you make that clear by requiring only that answer, you are transmitting a wakeup call to partner "Hey, pard, remember our defences to forcing clubs?" Same as if I were to ask "Is that strong?" (we play a specialized defence to simply Strong Clubs. Anything that could be natural, including 2+ or Polish Club, is treated as natural). Which is, of course, why the "correct" question is "please explain". An attempt to minimize UI passed between partners while proper Alert Procedure is being followed. Screens, of course, are different. However, Probst, Sane^H^H^Hr.'s comments still hold about "disingenious" responses. >So I feel it is right for the player who is asked the question to assume >that the answer to that very question is what does matter to his opponent, You can assume that. But the Alert procedure, at least in the ACBL, is written to minimize the effects of that assumption, and IMHO, this is a Good Thing(tm). If for no other reason than my current bugaboo, 1C! "could be short". It is alertable because it "could be short"er than 3 cards; the reason why is 95% of the time because they are playing 5cM, 4cD[1]; if that is not the case, not disabusing the opponents of their misconception will provide a strong, extra-legal advantage to your side. >If I ask 'how are you ?' and don't mind the answer, I feel mildly >inconsistent. But this is a minority view. > Regulation, sir, regulation. Social regulation states that "how are you?" is to elicit a comforting response, unless the asker is sufficiently close (or sufficiently Professional) to care about the true answer. Bridge regulation states that "is it weak" is to be treated equivalently to "please explain". Michael. [1] Some of the others: 1C is natural, or 15-17, balanced; 1C is 2+, often with 4+ diamonds (1D is the strong bid); 1C denies an 5 card suit outside of clubs (this pair play mini-Roman 2D to deal with the 4=4=4=1s). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 16 04:22:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8FIMdf16230 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Sep 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 (calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8FIMWt16226 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 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 OAA23584 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 14:24:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200009151824.OAA23584@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] did insufficient to protect his own back ? Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: References: <005201c01c81$bdaa7e00$375408c3@dodona> <002d01c017ff$db3d4960$abdd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000913075856.00b2c590@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20000913172338.008569c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 14:24:54 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 14 September 2000 at 1:41, "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: >I'd go berserk if you did that. You are *intentionally* misleading your >opponents, and you knew it. I'd issue a PP just to start with and would >probably wonder audibly and publicly about your parentage, your sister's >morals and your daughter's reputation :))))) cheers john I'm quite upfront about my parentage: after all, they married a month later, there's no inheritance issues, and I like being a bastard (in all senses of that word). As to the other two, if you have any information, please make me aware of it. Not only will the gossip be interesting, but the existence of previously-unheard of relatives would be the occasion for a party. But I would never do this. I'm scared of the PP :-). 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 Sep 16 04:23:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8FIMvO16242 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 04:22:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from esebh03nok.ntc.nokia.com (esebh03nok.ntc.nokia.com [131.228.118.244]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8FIMot16238 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 04:22:51 +1000 (EST) Received: by esebh03nok with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) id ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:22:46 +0300 Message-ID: From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com To: dburn@btinternet.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Singing in petto (was : Compulsory Pause over Preempt) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:22:45 +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 David Burn [mailto:dburn@btinternet.com] > Sent: 15. September 2000 2:45 > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: [BLML] Singing in petto (was : Compulsory Pause over > Preempt) > > > Peter wrote: > > > Singing out loud is dodgy too. Not common yet, but ... :) > > Oh, I don't know. No need for Lightner doubles any more - just sing a > few lead-directing songs. "Diamonds are a girl's best friend", "Hearts > of Oak"... Moreover, there would be no more need for acrimonious post > mortems. A few bars of "Show me the way to go home" would get the > message across. Just imagine how the post-mortems might look like. For instance, try "Why did you throw the jack of hearts away?" "HYACINTH HOUSE" - The Doors 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 Sep 16 04:37:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8FIbMU16257 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 04:37:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8FIbFt16253 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 04:37:15 +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 OAA24025 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 14:39:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200009151839.OAA24025@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Redress after damage from proper procedure? Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <017501c01dc5$6ff40600$189c1e18@san.rr.com> References: <200009131600.MAA16269@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <017501c01dc5$6ff40600$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 14:39:36 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 13 September 2000 at 13:53, "Marvin L. French" wrote: >Michael, what UI does West have? > >Marv > First, welcome back! >> Now, West has enough UI that he's somewhat constrained >> against leading a heart, it isn't his natural lead anyway, and 6D makes >> on the lead. >> Again, sorry for the delay - my mail's been offline for two days. That also accounts for any replies that seem out of order (and the multitude of replies, for that matter). Well, the auction went: 1S-2D; 4H-4NT; 6D out. Now 4H is Alerted and explained (Kickback), third-hand calls the director, and asks what his options are. Leader has a natural lead of a club - a heart lead would be unusual at least, given only the auction and the explanation. Would you not consider a heart lead "use of UI?" Certainly, if the auction had proceeded without the Delayed Alerts, it would have gone 1S-2D; 4H!-(X)-4NT; 6D out and the heart lead would have been natural and obvious, regardless of the contents of leader's hand. Which is, of course, the problem. Michael. P.S. Information I should have presented the first time around: This is not a strong enough game that the opponents are expected to even know that Kickback exists (Sectional Stratified Pairs - for non-ACBLers, this means that the field ranges from novices-yesterday to the second-highest MP winner in Canada so far this year) , never mind how Delayed Alerts work. Ok, so everyone should have looked at the Alert procedure at least once, but you know and I know that that doesn't happen. And I don't expect anyone (except the TD) to be familiar enough with a 16-page document to know all the intricacies, just those that impact their bidding system. And the TD gets to look it up come ruling-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 Sat Sep 16 04:45:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8FIj1J16274 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 04:45:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8FIipt16270 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 04:44:55 +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 OAA03586; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 14:44:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA01586; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 14:44:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 14:44:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200009151844.OAA01586@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, blml@farebrother.cx Subject: Re: [BLML] Redress after damage from proper procedure? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Michael Farebrother > 1S-2D; 4H*-4NT; 6D out. *=artificial I thought delayed alerts started _after_ opener's rebid, not _on_ opener's rebid. If so, it solves this particular case -- 4H should have been alerted immediately -- but of course not the equivalent problem later in the auction. If an alert isn't required, and no question is asked, I'm afraid the defending side has no recourse. In the above auction, though, the 4H bid seems sufficiently unusual that a question should be automatic if alerts are indeed "off" for that bid. The key, of course, is for everyone to know exactly when alerts are and are not required. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 16 05:15:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8FJEwt16311 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 05:14:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe29.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8FJEqt16307 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 05:14:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 12:14:45 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [209.206.13.69] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <3.0.6.32.20000909021322.008651e0@worldcom.ch> <00b901c01ea9$8eed5a40$775608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] voided claim Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 14:16:48 -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: 15 Sep 2000 19:14:45.0100 (UTC) FILETIME=[352402C0:01C01F49] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Grattan Endicott To: Roger Pewick ; blml Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 5:27 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] voided claim | | Grattan Endicott | To: blml | Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 7:41 PM | Subject: Re: [BLML] voided claim | > | ------------ \x/ --------- | > | > I have been reading the words of L68D. It makes clear that play | > subsequent a claim is voided. However, it does not say here or anywhere | > else that such subsequent play if it existed is not evidence | > | +=+ WBF LC Minute of 4th September 2000:- | "At the request of an appeals committee chairman | the Committee considered the circumstances of an | appeal which had been adjudicated. A player had | made a claim by showing his cards and informing | defenders that on the basis of the known information | he would make his contract through a double squeeze. | His opponent had requested him to play out the | cards and, in violation of Law 68D, declarer had done | so. In the course of this he had become confused | and misplayed a card. His opponents now challenged | the claim on the basis that he had demonstrated he | could be careless in executing the squeeze. The | Director had declared the play of the cards subsequent | to the claim to be void, and had determined that, as | between expert players it was clear the statement of | claim lacked nothing for clarity, the play of the squeeze | being perfectly evident. | | When the matter had come to appeal the appeals | committee had supported the Director in ignoring | all play subsequent to the claim, and in finding that | the statement of claim, each player respecting the | abilities of the other, contained no flaw. The Laws | Committee agreed that the voided play in such a | situation is wholly null and shall not be given any | attention in determining the validity of the claim. | When the statement of claim is made an opponent | who has any doubt about it must summon the | Director at once; play must cease entirely. The | questions of irrationality, inferiority and carelessness, | must be judged in relation to the statement | accompanying the claim and the lines of play that | are not excluded by the statement. On the occasion | in question the appeals committee found that the | intended play was entirely clear from the statement, | but in any case the continuation of the play of the | cards was void and could not affect the issue. " | ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I was expressing the view that the words of L68 did not preclude the use of voided play when assessing what was normal for claimer for that hand. Grattan has expressed that it is the view of the LC that L68 forbids the use of voided play for that purpose. I note that a previous announcement was not referenced so perhaps this is watershed. Actually, what I thought would be the motivation for L68D was to eliminate the possibility that claimer would be awakened or obtain information and thus be able to overcome deficiencies in his claim. What I conclude now is that L68 can have the effect of overcoming deficiencies in claimer's play. Another thing that has me puzzled. Declarer claimed that he would execute a double squeeze if east held 5 spades, plus at least 4 diamonds or 4 clubs. I am curious as how to execute a double squeeze when east holds 5-2-2-4. Anyone out there who can help? 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 Sat Sep 16 06:26:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8FKQGD16349 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 06:26:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8FKQAt16344 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 06:26:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.117] (d185fca75.rochester.rr.com [24.95.202.117]) by mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA05841 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 16:21:32 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200009151844.OAA01586@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200009151844.OAA01586@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 16:20:17 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Redress after damage from proper procedure? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Steve Willner wrote: >I thought delayed alerts started _after_ opener's rebid, not _on_ >opener's rebid. If so, it solves this particular case -- 4H should >have been alerted immediately -- but of course not the equivalent >problem later in the auction. The subtitle to part X of the Alert Procedure is "ALERTABLE BIDS ABOVE THE LEVEL OF 3 NT STARTING WITH OPENERS REBID". >If an alert isn't required, and no question is asked, I'm afraid the >defending side has no recourse. In the above auction, though, the 4H >bid seems sufficiently unusual that a question should be automatic if >alerts are indeed "off" for that bid. > >The key, of course, is for everyone to know exactly when alerts are and >are not required. Heh. No, that's only half the key. The other half is getting them to comply. For example, one of my semi-regular partners knows that "short club" is to be alerted, not announced, (I know that she knows this, because the first six times she announced it, I told her it's alertable) yet she still announces it ("could be short"). 'S better than saying nothing, I suppose, but it still ain't right. :-) 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 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOcKF3L2UW3au93vOEQI+mgCg40CgVMATLF8E6zIRb5mZfFqqHugAn1Yw 1ngfWJf2k4cYqpRi68/MQRU0 =P3Mt -----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 Sep 16 06:29:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8FKTbH16361 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 06:29:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8FKTVt16357 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 06:29:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcauj32.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.76.98]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA15387; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 16:29:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00f001c01f53$6be21860$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Bridge Laws" References: <009a01c01e01$b37d2e60$dfe436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <00ba01c01ea9$8fd85680$775608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 16:27:50 -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: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Peter Gill" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 6:46 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director > > > +=+ WBFLC Minute of 30th August 2000.:- > "The Committee addressed any situation when, as the > result of an irregularity, a result cannot be obtained > and an artificial adjusted score would normally be > awarded. If a non-offending side would be disadvantaged > by an award of average plus (60%, or higher where > Law 88 allows) the Committee does not consider a > higher percentage may be awarded under Law 12C1. > If the circumstances allow the Director may assign > a score under Law 12A1 or Law 84E." > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > ISTM that this goal could be accomplished with an alteration of L88. L12A1 can be left alone, as it already points to L86 and L88. L88 would only need minor rewording. Current wording: "In a pair or individual event, when a non-offending contestant is required to take an artificial adjusted score through no fault or choice of his own, such contestant shall be awarded (a minimum of) 60% of the matchpoints available to him on that board, or the percentage of matchpoints he earned on boards actually played during the session if that percentage was greater than 60%." This could be rephrased to something like: "In a pair or individual event, when a non-offending contestant is required to take an artificial adjusted score through no fault or choice of his own, such contestant shall be awarded either 60% of the matchpoints available to him on that board or the percentage of matchpoints he earned on boards actually played during the session, whichever is greater." This would also address the issue Peter Gill raised, of L12A2 also pointing to L88. Regards, Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 16 07:01:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8FL1I816383 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 07:01:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8FL1Ct16379 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 07:01:12 +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 RAA09849 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 17:01:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA01793 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 17:01:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 17:01:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200009152101.RAA01793@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Redress after damage from proper procedure? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Ed Reppert > The subtitle to part X of the Alert Procedure is "ALERTABLE BIDS > ABOVE THE LEVEL OF 3 NT STARTING WITH OPENERS REBID". Well, yes, but the text a bit below says: Once the auction has progressed to the point that opener has had the opportunity to make a rebid, no conventional calls at the four level or higher should be Alerted until the auction is over. This sure looks to me as though it means _after_, not _on_, opener's rebid. Of course it says "calls" where the intervening text makes clear that it must mean "bids," so maybe this text should be ignored. If we look at the Alert Chart (as opposed to the Alert Procedure), we find: Alertable bids (the alerts for doubles, redoubles and passes are ALWAYS immediate, never delayed) that are not to be alerted until after the auction is completed are Any conventional call above the level of 3 notrump starting with opener's rebid, in particular an unusual Ace-asking bid (including responses thereto and continuations thereafter). However, the Alert Chart says at the beginning that it is a only a summary, and "For a more complete description of alert requirements, please consult the alert pamphlet." I'm going to be away; Ed, any chance you could forward the above (or an edited version) to 'rulings@acbl.org' and ask them what's what? And perhaps suggest politely that the various documents ought to be consistent with one another? I wonder whether there's a document somewhere that gives an official text of the rule. I'm about 95% convinced that opener's first rebid is NOT to be alerted if above 3NT, but I'd like it to be 100%. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 16 07:30:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8FLU9I16401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 07:30:09 +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-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 e8FLU3t16397 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 07:30:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from bellatlantic.net (adsl-151-202-104-202.bellatlantic.net [151.202.104.202]) by smtp-out1.bellatlantic.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA14389 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 17:29:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <39C294C3.C0664B0C@bellatlantic.net> Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 17:29:39 -0400 From: Michael Kopera X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en]C-WorldNet (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastrict Appeals online References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Appeals No. 18 and 19 were missing when I looked. Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: EXT Adam Wildavsky [mailto:adam@tameware.com] > > Sent: 14. September 2000 22:28 > > To: Yvan Calame > > Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > > Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastrict Appeals online > > > > > > At 7:03 PM +0200 9/14/00, Yvan Calame wrote: > > >Maastrict Appeals are online at: > > > > > >http://home.worldcom.ch/fsb/appealse.html > > > > These appear to be the cases that made it into the daily bulletin. > > Two of those that did not, the Sweden-Austria appeals, were posted > > recently to rec.games.bridge. > > All appeals from all international events can be found at > > http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/appealse.html > > 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/ -- 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 Sep 16 07:59:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8FLxRv16422 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 07:59:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8FLxKt16418 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 07:59:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id RAA12011 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 17:59:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA01901 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 17:59:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 17:59:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200009152159.RAA01901@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Maastricht Decisions X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk For those who might not have Word on their computers, I've taken the liberty of converting the attachments Grattan sent a few days ago into plain text. The first two items were from Monday, Sept. 11: Method of applying Law 12C3. No recommendation is made as to the method of applying Law 12C3. It is felt that, in some cases, NBOs may wish to experiment with their ideas as to how this may be done. In the Olympiad at Maastricht the WBF Appeals Committee decided to assess a single adjusted score applicable to both sides and, if considered appropriate, apply separately a procedural penalty to the offending side. Assessing a weighted score. The WBF practice in assessing a weighted score under Law 12C3 is that the calculation should endeavour to restore the balance of equity in the hand in the instant prior to the infraction. The calculation relates to the expectations from that point forward in an auction unaffected by any irregularity. Therefore it is appropriate to incorporate an element in the weighting that represents the chances, if any, that the table result would have been legitimately obtained in such an auction. [I expect "legitimately" means "without any infraction," but it might have been a good idea to spell that out.--SW] The third item was from Tuesday, Sept. 12, labelled +=+ An AC finding in Maastricht following an Inquiry, not an appeal. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Developing a convention into a Brown Sticker convention. Grattan Endicott The appeals committee considered a case where a partnership had twice, a few rounds apart, taken psychic action by opening a Multi-2D and passing partner's response of Two in a major suit although the opener held in fact a weak two in the other major. On each occasion opponents were vulnerable and the psychic pair not vulnerable, and the opener held a weak two of scant values. The Committee were not confident that the partnership had developed an understanding before the second psychic occurred, but found that there is certainly a partnership understanding now that this distinctive form of psychic has occurred twice. The understanding will be deemed to continue for this partnership; they must declare it (as a Brown Sticker convention, see General Conditions of Contest, Section 42) in any future WBF Tournaments if the psychic action may occur. [The antecedent of 'it' is unclear; do they mean the pass? Or the supposed "pass or correct" bid that precedes the pass? As others have said, it isn't obvious why either is a convention, although I suppose you can make a case for the "pass or correct" bid that really means "pass regardless."--SPW] -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 16 08:10:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8FMANU16438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 08:10:23 +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 (oe27.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.84]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8FMAHt16434 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 08:10:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 15:10:10 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [209.206.13.93] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <00e601c01e83$47cf7060$71d736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] What does the fast pass over skip bid demonstrably suggests? Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 14:50:36 -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: 15 Sep 2000 22:10:10.0377 (UTC) FILETIME=[B6B1D390:01C01F61] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Gill To: Bridge Laws Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 2:37 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] What does the fast pass over skip bid demonstrably suggests? | Richard Hills wrote: | >Some years ago, Eric Kokish participated in Australia's | >National Open Teams. I had the privilege to play against | >him in a match in the qualifying Swiss. On one board | >(where only we were vul) pard opened 1H and RHO | >(Eric's partner) overcalled 4S. Australia does not have | >a STOP!/compulsory pause regulation. In accordance | >with L73A2 and L73D I now called 5H in my usual quick | >tempo. All passed, and 5H made 11 tricks. | > | >When Kokish saw my dummy, he was unhappy, as I had | >*exactly* the values to justify my 5H call, rather than a little | >bit more. He complained that pard's losing option to | >continue to 6H was less likely after a quick 5H. | >However, the TD was not summoned since I had not bid | >*faster* than my usual tempo. | > | >Is "bidding in unvaring tempo" (assuming a compulsory | >pause reg is not applicable) a fixed constant? Or would | >it be more ethical to use the formula "normal tempo | >multiplied by extrinsic difficulty in selecting a call equals | >unvarying tempo"? | | | My impression from playing against Richard many times | is that he is one of those quick-thinking people who bids | and plays in a uniform very fast tempo. I cannot imagine | that such people should have to unnecessarily prolong | their actions, when their initial style is totally consistent | with the requirements of the Laws. I should think that the prime value of a mandatory pause should be lost with such a view. It is the opportunity for all players to better maintain good tempo by allowing them time to reflect. The fast bidder now upends his LHO or even his partner which I consider to be unfair since it could place the burden of UI upon the opponents. That does not consider the problems of disruption by the 'less than common player'. I think a fair and reasonable standard is About 10 Seconds. Meaning that less than 7 is getting to be a little too far from ten and more than 15 is getting to be a little too far from ten. Any flexibility in those guidelines? It would seem right but it should be more on a case by case basis. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas | 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 Sep 16 08:25:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8FMPEg16455 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 08:25:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8FMP7t16451 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 08:25:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.117] (d185fca75.rochester.rr.com [24.95.202.117]) by mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA26699; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 18:21:09 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200009152101.RAA01793@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200009152101.RAA01793@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 18:15:12 -0400 To: Steve Willner From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Redress after damage from proper procedure? Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 5:01 PM -0400 9/15/00, Steve Willner wrote: >I'm going to be away; Ed, any chance you could forward the above (or an >edited version) to 'rulings@acbl.org' and ask them what's what? And >perhaps suggest politely that the various documents ought to be >consistent with one another? Wilco. :-) 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 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOcKhtb2UW3au93vOEQKDXQCg4i8v74GNTmf2cgAv4uIxuO5u0UcAmwdM BjTQWAtLq/Hh+pk/jHZrWfnA =yTOP -----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 Sep 16 08:57:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8FMuUo16477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 08:56:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8FMuNt16473 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 08:56:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.4] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13a4P6-000OAJ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 23:56:20 +0100 Message-ID: <001601c01f68$4a225e00$045408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: <3.0.1.32.20000914235644.01402c90@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 23:51:53 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 4:56 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more --------------------------- \x/ ------------------------- > > But I think that a more basic problem is a fundamental philosophical > viewpoint held by those who write the Laws. Grattan (and, one presumes, his > colleagues) has made no secret of his view that the Laws are fundamentally > _restrictive_ with respect to players' actions, and fundamentally > _permissive_ with respect to the actions of SO's, TD's and AC's. That is, > players only have rights that are explicitly granted to them under the > Laws, and actions outside of those are to be deemed un-lawful, while the > actions of the game's ruling authorities are presumed lawful unless in > direct and undeniable conflict with the Laws. > +=+ To quote the WBFLC: "The Scope of the Laws states that the laws define correct procedure and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, extraneous and it may be deemed an infraction of law if information deriving from it is used in the auction or the play." The powers of Directors and regulators are set forth in the laws, with a landmark ruling in Geneva that regulations authorized by other sections of the laws are not subject to Section 80F. Since it is a legitimate use, for example, of powers given in Law 40D to say: "It is a condition of the use of any convention that it may not be used with a partnership understanding that allows of an opening one bid in a suit on ..........." my view is that the pretence of confining system regulation to conventional bids etc. is a delusion and futile. Therefore I do not understand why we do not bring the game into the real world by altering 40D to read "Partnership understandings may be regulated by Zonal authorities or by NBOs, and in the Conditions of Contest for any tournament under the auspices of the World Bridge Federation." Indeed, as a general principle I advocate removal of the word 'convention' from the law book and its replacement throughout with 'partnership understanding'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Thus, you and I may read L40D as restricting the rights of SO's to regulate > non-conventional bids, but in the strictest sense, it does not actually say > that. Its only explicit effect is to confer a right to regulate some bids, > and the limits on that right are vague to the point of insignificance. > > 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/ > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 16 11:39:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8G1cJM16544 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 11:38:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8G1cDt16540 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 11:38:14 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 2BAAB48954; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:38:10 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:37:59 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: [BLML] Law 93B3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all powers assigned by these Laws to the Director, except that the committee may not overrule the Director on a point of law or regulations, or on exercise of his disciplinary powers. The committee may recommend to the Director that he change his ruling." In order to apply this law it seems to me that a committee must report its decision first to the director. Only if the director agrees that the committee has followed the laws should the decision be reported to the players. Granting that the director would seldom refuse to implement a committee's decision, this procedure would still seem to have several advantages. Firstly, in order to explain to the director which law or laws they've applied the committee will actually have to follow the laws. This will afford some protection against committees who, intentionally or otherwise, concoct their own brand of justice. Secondly, since the relevant laws will have been mentioned to the director they will also have been mentioned to the scribe, who can refer to them in his writeup. I checked the WBF COP and this procedure is not mentioned, though neither is any alternative. No committee I've served on or appeared before has worked this way, nor have any I've observed. Does anyone have experience with this approach to ACs? Any opinions as to whether or not it would be an improvement over current practice? -- Adam Wildavsky -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 16 14:54:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8G4rF916615 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 14:53:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8G4r9t16611 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 14:53:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.24]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:53:22 -0700 Message-ID: <03a901c01f99$cd949ce0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200009151844.OAA01586@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Redress after damage from proper procedure? Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:51:35 -0700 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 Willner wrote: > > I thought delayed alerts started _after_ opener's rebid, not _on_ > opener's rebid. ACBL Alert Procedure Page 4 of 16: "...starting with the opening bidder's rebid." More accurately, page 13: "Once the auction has progressed to the point that opener has had the opportunity to make a rebid.." That is, he might pass or double instead of bidding, but Delayed Alerts kick in. Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, 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 Sep 16 15:15:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8G5Fch16638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 15:15:38 +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 e8G5FVt16634 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 15:15:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.70] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13aAJy-0002UY-00; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 06:15:26 +0100 Message-ID: <000501c01f9d$40a42680$465608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200009152159.RAA01901@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Fwd: Maastricht Decisions Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 05:36:53 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 10:59 PM Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Maastricht Decisions > For those who might not have Word on their computers, I've taken the > liberty of converting the attachments Grattan sent a few days ago into > plain text. > > The first two items were from Monday, Sept. 11: > +=+ These are under contemplation to be part of the jurisprudence. +=+ > Method of applying Law 12C3. > > Assessing a weighted score. > > [I expect "legitimately" means "without any infraction," but it might > have been a good idea to spell that out.--SW] > +=+ Thank you for the thought. It means picking up the auction at the point where the infraction is about to occur and taking it forward without irregularity and in particular without there being any UI orMI. +=+ > > The third item was from Tuesday, Sept. 12, labelled > > Developing a convention into a Brown Sticker convention. > +=+ This has a different target. Possibly the practice does not make it BS because of a weasel statement in the Systems Policy. However the AC was disturbed that a destructive psyche based upon a partnership understanding could arise in a No Brown Sticker tournament when the multi is excepted from Brown Stickers as a concession. I shall be consulting in Europe regarding a possible extension of the EBL regulations to cover the point. There was no evidence of a prior PU but the suspicion inevitably arises that non-vul against vul it was not unknown previously in this established partnership for a scant value weak-two to combine with this type of psyche. ~ 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 Sep 16 15:33:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8G5XPV16651 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 15:33:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8G5XJt16647 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 15:33:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.158] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13aAbA-0002cM-00; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 06:33:12 +0100 Message-ID: <001f01c01f9f$bbb16480$465608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" , "Adam Wildavsky" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 93B3 Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 06:33:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2000 2:37 AM Subject: [BLML] Law 93B3 > > I checked the WBF COP and this procedure is not mentioned, though > neither is any alternative. No committee I've served on or appeared > before has worked this way, nor have any I've observed. Does anyone > have experience with this approach to ACs? Any opinions as to whether > or not it would be an improvement over current practice? > +=+ As Chairman of an AC my practice is to seek help from the Chief TD if we have doubts about the interpretation of law in the Director's ruling. The WBFLC has a relevant minute of which the core statements are: "An appeals committee which believes a Director has ruled incorrectly as to a matter of law should invite the Chief Director to review the application of law. A committee may, however, alter a Director's ruling where it finds differently from the Director as to the 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 Sat Sep 16 16:25:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8G6OuA16679 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 16:24:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8G6Ont16675 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 16:24:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-151.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.151]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA11017 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 08:24:45 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39C1365A.19A1EFEB@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 22:34:34 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] voided claim References: <3.0.6.32.20000909021322.008651e0@worldcom.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: > > > I have been reading the words of L68D. It makes clear that play > subsequent a claim is voided. However, it does not say here or anywhere > else that such subsequent play if it existed is not evidence to be > considered as to what is normal [careless but not irrational] for the > claimer on the unstated line of play claimed for the hand. > > I feel that the statement of claim must not be taken from claimer. But > his statement was not so clear as to what double squeeze meant at the > time. I do think that the subsequent play provided illumination on the > matter. > The words "normal" or "irrational" only appear when judging on lines of play outside the claim statement. The TD and AC decided that the claim statement was complete, and correct. That's all there is to it. Nothing more. -- 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 Sep 16 17:26:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8G7QDE16719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 17:26:13 +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 e8G7Q5t16715 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 17:26:07 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 45569 invoked for bounce); 16 Sep 2000 07:26:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.59.185) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 16 Sep 2000 07:26:01 -0000 Message-ID: <010801c01faf$9c8d07c0$b93b1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <039401c01d59$02350d60$25d336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 09:24:54 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Peter Gill" wrote: > - Since declarer would have picked up a big swing but for > the kibitzer's intervention due to his teammates being plus > 800, IIRC the AC decided that an imaginative illegal (?) > transfer of about 10 imps from the kibitzer's team to > declarer's team was equitable. The laws obviously don't support this decision but at least this feels fair. The AC might IMHO have fined the kibitzer's team a 10 IMPs PP in accordance with the law. 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 Sep 16 18:29:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8G8Si816750 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 18:28:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8G8SZt16746 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 18:28:36 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 14895 invoked from network); 16 Sep 2000 08:28:19 -0000 Received: from petrus2.konvent (HELO eduhi.at) (192.168.1.116) by michael.gym with SMTP; 16 Sep 2000 08:28:19 -0000 Message-ID: <39C32F72.4ED60E55@eduhi.at> Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 10:29:38 +0200 From: Petrus Schuster OSB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [de] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] What does the fast pass over skip bid demonstrably suggests? References: <00e601c01e83$47cf7060$71d736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick schrieb: > > I should think that the prime value of a mandatory pause should be lost > with such a view. It is the opportunity for all players to better > maintain good tempo by allowing them time to reflect. The fast bidder > now upends his LHO or even his partner which I consider to be unfair > since it could place the burden of UI upon the opponents. If I understand this correctly, you seem to think it unfair to put the side making the skip bid in a potential UI situation. What should be unfair in that? The skip bid has created the situation, and you could far more easily convince me that this is unfair to the opponents. 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 Sep 16 22:05:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8GC3oE16847 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 22:03:50 +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 (oe36.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8GC3jt16843 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 22:03:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 05:03:37 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [209.206.12.135] From: "axman22" To: , "Petrus Schuster OSB" References: <00e601c01e83$47cf7060$71d736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <39C32F72.4ED60E55@eduhi.at> Subject: Re: [BLML] What does the fast pass over skip bid demonstrably suggests? Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 07:01:21 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Sep 2000 12:03:37.0657 (UTC) FILETIME=[255B3290:01C01FD6] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I should like to be educated in your reasoning beyond your one sentence. Thanks in advance roger ----- Original Message ----- From: Petrus Schuster OSB To: BLML Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2000 03:29 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] What does the fast pass over skip bid demonstrably suggests? > Roger Pewick schrieb: > > > > I should think that the prime value of a mandatory pause should be lost > > with such a view. It is the opportunity for all players to better > > maintain good tempo by allowing them time to reflect. The fast bidder > > now upends his LHO or even his partner which I consider to be unfair > > since it could place the burden of UI upon the opponents. > > If I understand this correctly, you seem to think it unfair to put the > side making the skip bid in a potential UI situation. > What should be unfair in that? The skip bid has created the situation, > and you could far more easily convince me that this is unfair to the > opponents. > > 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 16 22:19:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8GCJGk16866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 22:19:16 +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 (f277.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.55]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8GCJBt16862 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 22:19:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 05:19:03 -0700 Received: from 172.167.137.180 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 12:19:03 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.167.137.180] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 05:19:03 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Sep 2000 12:19:03.0411 (UTC) FILETIME=[4D260C30:01C01FD8] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Wayne Burrows" >From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > If my partner and I agree to play multi, that agreement includes >the > > standard responses. Otherwise, the convention we are playing is >something > > other that Multi. Likewise, Jacoby 2NT where the 3-level responses are >long > > suits and the 4-level responses are singletons or voids is no longer >Jacoby > > 2NT, but more like Variations on a Theme by Jacoby. > >Interesting view but you have to discard the definition of convention in >the >Laws to hold that view. > >A view that is consistent with the definition in the laws is that: > >Multi 2d (or 2c or whatever) is a convention showing certain types of hands > >and > >the conventional responses (standard) of 2h/s/nt are three separate >conventions. I don't see how this is consistent with regulation of relay systems. In a relay system, bid X means nothing. But required responses Y, Z, and W are part of the convention. If X, Y, Z, and W are all regulated separately, then am I free to bid X anytime I want when it means nothing? >Unfortunately for those who want to over-regulate a pass of a convention 2h >response to a conventional 2d opening is not conventional and so not able >to >be regulated legally. > >In practice the regulators ignor their own regulations. One can only sit >and wonder at their motives. I'm not certain how you find regulators ignore their own regulations. In the ACBL, some regulations appear to ignore the law. -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 Sun Sep 17 00:22:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8GELjL16942 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 00:21:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8GELdt16938 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 00:21:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d369.iae.nl [212.61.5.115]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id C417C20F12 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 16:21:33 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <011501c01fe9$a2f54d40$35053dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Fw: [BLML] What does the fast pass over skip bid demonstrably suggests? Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 16:22:18 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 3:39 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] What does the fast pass over skip bid demonstrably suggests? > > > > I doubt you will find one in a "top level" tournament; good players bid > > in tempo after skip bids. I wouldn't be surprised to find a 'fast > > pass' case in one of the ACBL books, although I don't recall any > > offhand. > > -- > > The only one I can recall that comes close is Orlando 23 - where > there was an alleged fast 4S bid which may have discouraged > partner from bidding on in the auction: > > 2C - 3C > 3S - 4C > 4S - P > > Don't recall any fast passes... > > Linda > Nevertheless there are more fast passes than slow passes with UI. Ben >=============================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 17 09:00:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8GMxL217263 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 08:59:21 +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 e8GMxEt17258 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 08:59:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.129] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13aQvG-000HpV-00; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 23:59:02 +0100 Message-ID: <006c01c02031$d5e1b840$125608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Peter Gill" , "Bridge Laws" References: <00dd01c01e81$98d0a940$71d736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:19:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 8:25 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director > Grattan Endicott wrote: > >+=+ WBFLC Minute of 30th August 2000.:- > >"The Committee addressed any situation when, as the > >result of an irregularity, a result cannot be obtained > >and an artificial adjusted score would normally be > >awarded. If a non-offending side would be disadvantaged > >by an award of average plus (60%, or higher where > >Law 88 allows) the Committee does not consider a > >higher percentage may be awarded under Law 12C1. > >If the circumstances allow the Director may assign > >a score under Law 12A1 or Law 84E." > > Is the possibility of a Director going via Law 12A2 to Law 88, > and awarding say 85%, deliberately omitted? > (not an unlikely scenario, given that Law 12A2 directly > refers the Director to Law 88). > > Peter Gill. > +=+ The WBFLC ruled that the only circumstances in which Law 88 authorizes an award of over 60% is when the percentage obtained on the boards actually played in the session exceeds 60%. When the conditions specified in 12A1 are present, or those in 84E, an assigned adjusted score may be awarded; to trigger this there has to be an irregularity or a violation of law committed by opponent. This is what 'if the circumstances allow' means: the Director has to find that opponents have offended. As for 'a minimum of' I have some difficulty with the meaning; no question was voiced in the WBFLC concerning the ruling - I remained silent because I did not know what I wanted to say. What I feel in the light of the ruling is that, for example, maybe when a top is 142 and decimals are not an option, the average plus must be 86 not 85. But I think we need a better statement of the law when we get down to work. ~ 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 Sep 17 09:00:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8GMxFp17259 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 08:59:15 +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 e8GMx6t17253 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 08:59:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.129] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13aQvH-000HpV-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 23:59:03 +0100 Message-ID: <006d01c02031$d6b2c3e0$125608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 23:57:59 +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: Saturday, September 16, 2000 1:19 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more > >From: "Wayne Burrows" > >From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > >Unfortunately for those who want to over-regulate a pass of a convention 2h > >response to a conventional 2d opening is not conventional and so not able > >to > >be regulated legally. +=+ With opponents silent: North South 2D (i) 2H (ii) Pass (iii) (i) I have either a weak two in Hearts or a weak two in Spades or else I have one of a number of varieties of strong hands (ii) If you have a Weak Two in Hearts I do not wish to compete at any higher level than this (iii) ? I have a Weak Two in Hearts ( a 'natural' pass which does not artificially promise or deny values other than in the last suit named). Would you not think this is the meaning attributable to the above auction? Has North shown a Weak Two in Hearts without mentioning the suit? If so, then to make the pass when not holding the suit is psychic; if the partner has a heightened awareness of the possibility of a psychic pass, sufficiently that he could take his awareness of psychic possibilities into account (whether he does so or not -- WBFLC, Aug 30, 2000) then a partnership understanding has developed. That was found to be the case with the partnership in question and the pair were too late to add it to their convention card. ~ 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 Sep 17 16:56:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8H6tHc17451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 16:55:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from michael.gym (gatekeeper.asn-linz.ac.at [193.170.68.253]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8H6t8t17447 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 16:55:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from eduhi.at (petrus2.konvent [192.168.1.116]) by michael.gym (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA05163; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 08:55:08 -0400 Message-ID: <39C46B12.8B6297A9@eduhi.at> Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 08:56:18 +0200 From: Petrus Schuster OSB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [de] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: axman22 , BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] What does the fast pass over skip bid demonstrably suggests? References: <00e601c01e83$47cf7060$71d736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <39C32F72.4ED60E55@eduhi.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk axman22 schrieb: > > I should like to be educated in your reasoning beyond your one sentence. > > > > I should think that the prime value of a mandatory pause should be lost > > > with such a view. It is the opportunity for all players to better > > > maintain good tempo by allowing them time to reflect. The fast bidder > > > now upends his LHO or even his partner which I consider to be unfair > > > since it could place the burden of UI upon the opponents. > > > > If I understand this correctly, you seem to think it unfair to put the > > side making the skip bid in a potential UI situation. > > What should be unfair in that? The skip bid has created the situation, > > and you could far more easily convince me that this is unfair to the > > opponents. > > > > Petrus Let's see if I succeed: Skip bids tend to create UI situations regardless of the stop-card regulations in force. In Austria, the player making the skip bid is required to leave the stop-card on the table for about 10 seconds, and when he removes it LHO should call. This should take care of the problem, but although this regulation has been in force for more than 20 years (skip bidder had to say "GO" in the pre-bidding-box days), about half of the players don't understand the regulation and remove the stop-card immediately. When the TD is called, in three out of four cases there will be no agreement on whether there has been a hesitation (complaints about fast passes are extremely rare), and TDs tend to accept that there has been some noticeable break in tempo, even if only for a few seconds - triggering L16A. An UI situation restricts the calls available to "offender's" partner and thereby creates an advantage to the other side - so you may easily improve your legal situation by the skip bid in that RHO is often barred from selecting a call only half of his peers would have made. Which is why I find nothing unfair in returning the UI burden to the skip-bidder's side by a fast bidder's literal application of L73D1 "maintain steady tempo". Regards, 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 Sun Sep 17 17:32:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8H7WZO17477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:32:35 +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 e8H7WRt17473 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:32:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.222] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13aYw1-000LxK-00; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 08:32:22 +0100 Message-ID: <001401c02079$8c16a5c0$de5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] For the mordantly hungry. Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 08:25:20 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0009_01C02080.D16DA360" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: 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_0009_01C02080.D16DA360 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Grattan Endicott; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:22:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([210.55.47.102]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20000917092451.GPBZ832940.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:24:51 +1200 Message-ID: <01e801c02088$14ca0980$7e2f37d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:16:51 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Todd Zimnoch" Wayne Burrows > >Multi 2d (or 2c or whatever) is a convention showing certain types of hands > > > >and > > > >the conventional responses (standard) of 2h/s/nt are three separate > >conventions. > > I don't see how this is consistent with regulation of relay systems. > In a relay system, bid X means nothing. But required responses Y, Z, and W > are part of the convention. If X, Y, Z, and W are all regulated separately, > then am I free to bid X anytime I want when it means nothing? > But my point is that your view is not how the law book defines convention - a convention is "a call ..." not "a system of calls..." > > I'm not certain how you find regulators ignore their own regulations. > In the ACBL, some regulations appear to ignore the law. > Fair enough - I agree and probably should have said regulators ignor the laws. Wayne Burrows -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 17 20:09:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8HA8so17575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:08:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta6-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta6-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.19]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8HA8ot17571 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:08:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.104.118]) by mta6-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20000917101046.DOOU1192841.mta6-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop>; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:10:46 +1200 Message-ID: <01ee01c0208e$7f106680$7e2f37d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "bridge-laws" References: <006d01c02031$d6b2c3e0$125608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:01:13 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grattan Endicott" > > +=+ With opponents silent: > > North South > 2D (i) 2H (ii) > Pass (iii) > > (i) I have either a weak two in Hearts or a weak > two in Spades or else I have one of a number > of varieties of strong hands > (ii) If you have a Weak Two in Hearts I do not > wish to compete at any higher level than this > (iii) ? I have a Weak Two in Hearts ( a 'natural' > pass which does not artificially promise or > deny values other than in the last suit > named). > > Would you not think this is the meaning > attributable to the above auction? If that is what you have explicitly or implicitly agreed with your partner but a "natural" (non-conventional) meaning of pass is I am willing to play 2h. There are many passes which do not show anything particular about your hand. I think your inference that pass shows length in hearts is flawed. In this auction (general bridge knowledge not special partnership understanding) pass shows willingness to play in 2h. Of course usually I will have hearts to pass but I am not precluded from passing without hearts. As an aside if my opponents kept us out of our heart game (or contract) sucessfully by this type of tactic I would be annoyed at my score but I would applaude their cleverness and cunning. > Has > North shown a Weak Two in Hearts > without mentioning the suit? Again only if that is part of the partnership agreement. > If so, > then to make the pass when not > holding the suit is psychic; But it is not a convention and can not be regulated as such. Also it is only a psychic if pass shows hearts if pass merely says lets play hearts at the 2-level then pass is neither a psychic and nor a convention. Therefore not subject to regulation. > if the > partner has a heightened awareness > of the possibility of a psychic pass, > sufficiently that he could take his > awareness of psychic possibilities into > account (whether he does so or not -- > WBFLC, Aug 30, 2000) then a > partnership understanding has > developed. It seems bizarre to me that someone or some group of people might impose on my partnership that we have a partnership understanding. I would want to see more evidence than that this has occured a couple of times before judging that a partnership understanding has developed. There are many bids, calls, judgements that my partners make repeatedly that I don't understand nor agree to - it is merely part of that partner's judgement or style. Frequency is simply not enough evidence to establish a "partnership understanding". As an aside: What procedures,if any, have been established so that a partnership can dispute that a partnership understanding has developed or is a pronouncement from the WBFLC equivalent to a devine fiat? >That was found to be > the case with the partnership in > question and the pair were too late > to add it to their convention card. This is different than what the original message documented where the WBFLC ruled that it was a BSC - which it is clearly not. 2d multi is a legal agreement and the pass is not a convention so can not be regulated according to law. Wayne Burrows -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 17 22:05:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8HC3we17633 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:03:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8HC3qt17629 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:03:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (vp237-193.worldonline.nl [195.241.237.193]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id EF22B36BD8; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 14:03:30 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00af01c0209f$d8905380$c1edf1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Cc: "Steve Willner" Subject: Re: [BLML] Fwd: Maastricht Decisions Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 14:07:25 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote : >For those who might not have Word on their computers, I've taken the >liberty of converting the attachments Grattan sent a few days ago into >plain text. I do not have Word, and therefore I am most grateful to Steve for his having done so. Jac Fuchs -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 17 22:54:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8HCsSa17671 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:54:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8HCsLt17667 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:54:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-224.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.224]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA17981 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 14:54:13 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39C4B40D.72FE584A@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 14:07:41 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more References: <006d01c02031$d6b2c3e0$125608c3@dodona> <01ee01c0208e$7f106680$7e2f37d2@laptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sorry Wayne, I had some sympathy for your previous arguments, but not here. Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > > Would you not think this is the meaning > > attributable to the above auction? > > If that is what you have explicitly or implicitly agreed with your partner > but a "natural" (non-conventional) meaning of pass is I am willing to play > 2h. The AC have decided this pair have more than this agreement. Stop that line of argumentation. It has been decided upon. > > There are many passes which do not show anything particular about your hand. > > I think your inference that pass shows length in hearts is flawed. In this > auction (general bridge knowledge not special partnership understanding) > pass shows willingness to play in 2h. Of course usually I will have hearts > to pass but I am not precluded from passing without hearts. > Decision of the AC. > As an aside if my opponents kept us out of our heart game (or contract) > sucessfully by this type of tactic I would be annoyed at my score but I > would applaude their cleverness and cunning. > > > Has > > North shown a Weak Two in Hearts > > without mentioning the suit? > > Again only if that is part of the partnership agreement. > As it now is, by the AC decision. > > If so, > > then to make the pass when not > > holding the suit is psychic; > > But it is not a convention and can not be regulated as such. > Yes it is, now. > Also it is only a psychic if pass shows hearts if pass merely says lets play > hearts at the 2-level then pass is neither a psychic and nor a convention. > Therefore not subject to regulation. > When the pass no longer promises hearts, it is a convention. Even when pass shows hearts, it is a convention. > > if the > > partner has a heightened awareness > > of the possibility of a psychic pass, > > sufficiently that he could take his > > awareness of psychic possibilities into > > account (whether he does so or not -- > > WBFLC, Aug 30, 2000) then a > > partnership understanding has > > developed. > > It seems bizarre to me that someone or some group of people might impose on > my partnership that we have a partnership understanding. > Well, of course we do, all the time. The TD is to assume "misinformation" (Law 75) measn precisely that. > I would want to see more evidence than that this has occured a couple of > times before judging that a partnership understanding has developed. There > are many bids, calls, judgements that my partners make repeatedly that I > don't understand nor agree to - it is merely part of that partner's > judgement or style. Frequency is simply not enough evidence to establish a > "partnership understanding". > That is a totally different argument. When is enough enough ? > As an aside: What procedures,if any, have been established so that a > partnership can dispute that a partnership understanding has developed or is > a pronouncement from the WBFLC equivalent to a devine fiat? > Well, if you have done something twice, and the WBFAC has caught up on it, then it is partnership understanding. Now either say to partner you will never do it again, or alert and explain accordingly. > >That was found to be > > the case with the partnership in > > question and the pair were too late > > to add it to their convention card. > > This is different than what the original message documented where the WBFLC > ruled that it was a BSC - which it is clearly not. That is another discussion. I believe the pass is conventional, weak, and shows either hearts OR spades. That could well be ruled BSC, even if the definitions of BSC don't yet cater for it. The WBFAC has decided it is a BSC. > 2d multi is a legal agreement and the pass is not a convention so can not be > regulated according to law. > > 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/ -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 18 02:01:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8HG0L117767 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 02:00:21 +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 e8HG0Et17760 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 02:00:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.54] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13agrN-000CCc-00; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:00:05 +0100 Message-ID: <001101c020c0$79dfe5a0$365408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Wayne Burrows" , "bridge-laws" References: <006d01c02031$d6b2c3e0$125608c3@dodona> <01ee01c0208e$7f106680$7e2f37d2@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 16:49:22 +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: Grattan Endicott ; bridge-laws Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 11:01 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more __________-- \x/ ___________ > > if the > > partner has a heightened awareness > > of the possibility of a psychic pass, > > sufficiently that he could take his > > awareness of psychic possibilities into > > account (whether he does so or not -- > > WBFLC, Aug 30, 2000) then a > > partnership understanding has > > developed. > >. Frequency is simply not enough evidence to establish a > "partnership understanding". > +=+ The laws and the Code of Practice say that it is. +=+ > > As an aside: What procedures,if any, have been established so that a > partnership can dispute that a partnership understanding has developed or is > a pronouncement from the WBFLC equivalent to a devine fiat? > +=+ It is quite simple. The Director rules that you have a partnership understanding that is not allowed or is concealed, and you go to the Appeals Committee to persuade them that he has made a wrong ruling. In some tournaments the Systems Committee or equivalent will make a ruling when they see your convention card - there may or may not be ways in the CoCs to allow of an appeal of a ruling by the Systems Committee. +=+ > > >That was found to be > > the case with the partnership in > > question and the pair were too late > > to add it to their convention card. > > This is different than what the original message documented where the WBFLC > ruled that it was a BSC - which it is clearly not. > 2d multi is a legal agreement and the pass is not a convention so can not be > regulated according to law. > +=+ They are two different documents. The first was a record of TAC decisions. This second one is edited, by me, for the Jurisprudence to be attached to the CoP. You know, Wayne, you are doing a bit of huffing and puffing. When it is all over you will find nothing has changed. 2D is a convention and can be regulated. The regulation can make conditions as to responses. The TAC in Maastricht was explicitly empowered in the Condition of Contest to enquire into the case that arose and to make decisions in respect of its findings. ~ 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 Sep 18 02:01:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8HG0HD17764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 02:00:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8HG0Bt17757 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 02:00:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.54] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13agrP-000CCc-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:00:07 +0100 Message-ID: <001201c020c0$7ac340c0$365408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] "Where wilt thou find their like agen?" Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 16:55:58 +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; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 02:52:24 +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 13ahft-0002Sa-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:52:18 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:47:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Another disputed beer claim, and administrivia References: <200009151335.JAA07680@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> In-Reply-To: <200009151335.JAA07680@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <200009151335.JAA07680@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>, Michael Farebrother writes > >Note: farebrother.cx (or at least the machine acting as maildrop for it) >was down for the last two days. It's back up now (with the problem >unfixed :-( ) and the messages are trickling in. I probably haven't >lost any messages - they're just doing the Aussie Shuffle, eh? - but if >there's anything you've sent that I *must* see, please resend to me? > >ObBLML: South is in 4H, and the position is: > > -- > -- > Q > Tx >T -- >-- T >-- K7 >Qx -- > K > 9 > -- > x > >with the lead in dummy. Declarer claims one of the last three tricks, >for down 1. This is obviously accepted, but E still wants to know how >declarer would choose to play it. > The claim has deprived you of your chance to score the beer card, since play ceases. Trick ownership is irrelevant after play ceases if the claim is for a number of tricks rather than which tricks. Claim accepted, Claimer buys D7 owner a beer. Obvious. cheers john >Now, disputed claims are to be adjudged with all doubts going to the >non-offending side, but what if one member of the NOs' interests is >served by leading a club, and the other by leading a diamond? > >Obviously, I'm not completely serious here, but there's a beer involved, >and I figured it was a convenient post to hang the "no connection" note >on. > >Michael (still peeved he didn't ruff out the diamond). >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mon Sep 18 03:32:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8HHVdL17882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 03:31:39 +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 e8HHVWt17878 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 03:31:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.157] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13aiHj-000G3A-00; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:31:24 +0100 Message-ID: <002101c020cd$3b2d8f80$9d5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ed Reppert" , "Bridge Laws" References: <3.0.6.32.20000912141818.007a4320@pop.ulb.ac.be><39BE2BB5.CD37AA51@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:30:02 +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: Bridge Laws Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 10:29 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more > ---------------- \x/ ----------------- > > I don't think the AC can define convention responses as "brown > sticker" or "not brown sticker" in the way they may have done here. I > think they have to look at the regs and the CoC. And it seems to me > that if those are unclear, then the fault does not lie with the > putative offending side in the case, but with the tournament > organization. Perhaps it's the WBF who should get penalized. :-) > +=+ It is a moot point! The key statement is this:- " EXCEPTION (to Brown Sticker classification): A two level opening bid showing a weak two in either major with or without the option of strong hand types, as described in the WBF Conventions Booklet." The AC interpreted this statement as limited to the description of the opening bid in the CB. They did not consider it extended to the later advisory note that said : " If you have some special arrangements, such as 'might pass a 2H/S response randomly .....'. such variations are sufficiently important to merit "quotes" around the name of the convention." This note, written for a purpose that has nothing to do with BS or not, does classify the agreement as a 'variation' of the multi as described in the booklet. I think the AC can make a good case. ~ 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 Sep 18 03:41:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8HHeoA17894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 03:40:50 +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.worldcom.ch (mail1.worldcom.ch [212.74.176.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8HHeht17890 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 03:40:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer ([195.119.116.24]) by mail.worldcom.ch (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA08625 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:40:29 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000917194056.008794f0@worldcom.ch> X-Sender: fsb@worldcom.ch X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:40:56 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Yvan Calame Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastrict Appeals online In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000914190338.00872bf0@worldcom.ch> <200009122221.SAA10404@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200009122221.SAA10404@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.6.32.20000914190338.00872bf0@worldcom.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 15:27 14.09.00 -0400, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >At 7:03 PM +0200 9/14/00, Yvan Calame wrote: >>Maastrict Appeals are online at: >> >>http://home.worldcom.ch/fsb/appealse.html > >These appear to be the cases that made it into the daily bulletin. >Two of those that did not, the Sweden-Austria appeals, were posted >recently to rec.games.bridge. Just added missing cases (2-4-6-13-18-19). Thanks Hermann. Yvan Calame. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 18 05:21:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8HJL0O17946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 05:21:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from esebh03nok.ntc.nokia.com (esebh03nok.ntc.nokia.com [131.228.118.244]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8HJKst17942 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 05:20:55 +1000 (EST) Received: by esebh03nok with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) id ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:20:49 +0300 Message-ID: From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] A question on Maastricht Appeal#2 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:20:49 +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 The appeal is at: http://home.worldcom.ch/fsb/maastrict.htm East - West bid 1H - 1S 2D - 2S ... up to 4S "The Facts: North had been told that two diamonds was game forcing, so he understood the meaning of two spades. The players: East/West explained their bidding system. One spade was forcing, showing 11+. One no-trump would also have been forcing, but showing 6-9. Two diamonds denied a minimum opening hand, and when East continued past two hearts, the situation had become fully Game forcing The Committee: Agreed with the Director that two diamonds was not alertable. South had failed to realise that there were questions that he could have asked." I must say I'm puzzled. First I don't understand that "the situation became fully game forcing" bit. At the table North told his opponent that 2D _was_ GF. If so then IM(H)O 2D looks alertable. And certainly alertable is 1S. Any comments? 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 Sep 18 05:28:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8HJSQE17978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Sep 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 oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8HJSJt17974 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 05:28:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.118] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13ak6l-000L1Y-00; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:28:12 +0100 Message-ID: <000e01c020dd$8c4ea740$765408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <005101c01c81$bcc722e0$375408c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Interpretation and requested change of words Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:14:38 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 11:46 AM Subject: [BLML] Re: Interpretation and requested change of words > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > >+=+ The WBFLC has minuted a request for copyright holders > >when next printing the laws to make a change in the footnote to > >Laws 69,70,71. In future this is to read: > > "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71 'normal' includes > >play that would be careless or inferior, but not irrational, for > >the class of player involved." > > The current footnote is interpreted as though it were > >so worded. > > Wahey!!!! > +=+ This fellow Wahey had nothing to do with it. :-)) Some of the questions that come up on blml do get to the committee when it meets. Reading the minutes will show this is not the only one that had its hour (well seconds at least) in Maastricht. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 18 05:42:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8HJg3U18007 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 05:42:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from t21mta01-app.talk21.com (mta01.talk21.com [62.172.192.171]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8HJfvt18003 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 05:41:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from davicaltd ([213.120.18.182]) by t21mta01-app.talk21.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000917194053.ELTX14498.t21mta01-app.talk21.com@davicaltd> for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:40:53 +0100 Message-ID: <006701c020df$7f1a4dc0$b61278d5@davicaltd> From: "David Martin" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Fw: [BLML] voided claim Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:41:26 +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 Roger Pewick wrote: > Another thing that has me puzzled. Declarer claimed that he would > execute a double squeeze if east held 5 spades, plus at least 4 diamonds > or 4 clubs. I am curious as how to execute a double squeeze when east > holds 5-2-2-4. Anyone out there who can help? S 3 H Q 9 D A 5 C K J 5 S 4 S Q J 9 8 H -- H -- D K Q 8 D 7 6 2 C 9 7 6 3 C 10 S A K 10 7 6 2 H -- D 9 C 2 ####### Try cashing HQ, H9, CK, CJ & DA. After following to this lot, East can only keep 3 cards and so is automatically squeezed in Spades and Clubs. Admittedly this is no longer a double squeeze. Perhaps this is the point that you were making? ####### -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 18 06:13:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8HKDQw18033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 06:13:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8HKDJt18029 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 06:13:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.139] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13akoG-000MzI-00; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:13:08 +0100 Message-ID: <002e01c020e3$d3844560$8b5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Ed Reppert" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more > CORRECTION Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:13:04 +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: Ed Reppert ; Bridge Laws Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 6:30 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more > > Grattan Endicott nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn > " Write the vision and make it plain upon the tables" > - Habakkuk > uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Ed Reppert > To: Bridge Laws > Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 10:29 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more > > > ---------------- \x/ ----------------- > > > > > I don't think the AC can define convention responses as "brown > > sticker" or "not brown sticker" in the way they may have done here. I > > think they have to look at the regs and the CoC. And it seems to me > > that if those are unclear, then the fault does not lie with the > > putative offending side in the case, but with the tournament > > organization. Perhaps it's the WBF who should get penalized. :-) > > > +=+ It is a moot point! The key statement is this:- > " EXCEPTION (to Brown Sticker classification): > A two level opening bid *in a minor* showing a weak two in > either major with or without the option of strong hand > types, as described in the WBF Conventions Booklet." > > The AC interpreted this statement as limited to > the description of the opening bid in the CB. They did > not consider it extended to the later advisory note > that said : " If you have some special arrangements, > such as 'might pass a 2H/S response randomly .....'. > such variations are sufficiently important to merit > "quotes" around the name of the convention." > This note, written for a purpose that has nothing > to do with BS or not, does classify the agreement > as a 'variation' of the multi as described in the > booklet. I think the AC can make a good case. > ~ 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 Sep 18 06:28:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8HKSCL18049 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 06:28:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8HKS7t18045 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 06:28:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.104.94]) by mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20000917204112.FJIM357059.mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop>; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 08:41:12 +1200 Message-ID: <032d01c020e5$005bf500$7e2f37d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <006d01c02031$d6b2c3e0$125608c3@dodona> <01ee01c0208e$7f106680$7e2f37d2@laptop> <39C4B40D.72FE584A@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 08:21:40 +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: "Herman De Wael" > Sorry Wayne, I had some sympathy for your previous > arguments, but not here. > > Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > > > > > Would you not think this is the meaning > > > attributable to the above auction? > > > > If that is what you have explicitly or implicitly agreed with your partner > > but a "natural" (non-conventional) meaning of pass is I am willing to play > > 2h. > > > The AC have decided this pair have more than this > agreement. Stop that line of argumentation. It has been > decided upon. > What is the evidence that there is an agreement? It seems plain to me that pass says lets play 2h - I can't think what else it could say. > > > > There are many passes which do not show anything particular about your hand. > > > > I think your inference that pass shows length in hearts is flawed. In this > > auction (general bridge knowledge not special partnership understanding) > > pass shows willingness to play in 2h. Of course usually I will have hearts > > to pass but I am not precluded from passing without hearts. > > > > Decision of the AC. So you are saying that the AC has the power to regulate non-conventional calls because they are outside the experience of a number of players. I say that the appeal committee does not have this right. I say congratulate the innovation not restrict it. > > > > If so, > > > then to make the pass when not > > > holding the suit is psychic; > > > > But it is not a convention and can not be regulated as such. > > > > Yes it is, now. A call is a convention if it meets the definition of a convention not because someone or some committee says it is a convention inspite of the definition. > > > Also it is only a psychic if pass shows hearts if pass merely says lets play > > hearts at the 2-level then pass is neither a psychic and nor a convention. > > Therefore not subject to regulation. > > > > When the pass no longer promises hearts, it is a convention. > Even when pass shows hearts, it is a convention. > I don't see this as a consequence of the definition. For pass to be a convention it must show: 1. unwillingness to play in the last named denomination 2. no high card strength in denomination named and 3. no length in denomination named. OR (from L30C) 1. more than a specified amount of strength 2. artificially promises strength other than in hearts (last named denomination) or 3. artificially denies strength other than in hearts (last name denomination) Using the definition from the definitions Pass in this auction clearly shows willingness to play in hearts. The motive may be that going down in 50s is going to be better for our score than giving away a game bonus. Using the definition from L30C 1. Pass in this auction clearly does not show strength 2. Pass does not promise strength elsewhere (it might have but is not promised) 3. Pass does not deny strength elsewhere > > Well, if you have done something twice, and the WBFAC has > caught up on it, then it is partnership understanding. Now > either say to partner you will never do it again, or alert > and explain accordingly. Explain what? 'Partner is willing to play in 2h' Pass shows willingness to play in 2h and is not conventional (by definition) why does it need an alert? If this call needs an alert then there are many other deceptive styles that also need alerts. Punt of 3nt without a stopper in unbid suit. Raises to game inspite of holding a minimum on invitational auctions etc etc. All of these are things that an opponent might not expect. Nevertheless I believe the flaw is in the reasoning of the opponent. 3nt doesn't show the necessary stopper but merely a willingness to play that contract. A raise doesn't show a maximum but a willingness to play for the game bonus. Pass doesn't show hearts but a willingness to play in hearts. In all of these cases the flaw is that the call shows something and the mistaken inferences drawn from that. > > > >That was found to be > > > the case with the partnership in > > > question and the pair were too late > > > to add it to their convention card. > > > > This is different than what the original message documented where the WBFLC > > ruled that it was a BSC - which it is clearly not. > > That is another discussion. Ok I must have got confused. > > I believe the pass is conventional, weak, and shows either > hearts OR spades. That could well be ruled BSC, even if the > definitions of BSC don't yet cater for it. The WBFAC has > decided it is a BSC. > And my point is that this decision is inspite of and not in accordance with the laws of the game: Definitions Convention - 1. 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. 2. Defender's play that serves to convey a meaning by agreement rather than inference. Pass in this auction is a 'A call that shows willingness to play in the denomination named hearts'. L30C. When Pass Is a Convention When the pass out of rotation is a convention, Law 31, not this Law, will apply. A pass is a convention if, by special agreement, it promises more than a specified amount of strength, or if it artificially promises or denies values other than in the last suit named. Pass of 2h neither promises values in hearts or in spades nor does it deny them. Therefore it is not a convention. Therefore it can not be a Brown Sticker Convention. 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 Sep 18 06:42:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8HKgR818070 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 06:42:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8HKgLt18066 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 06:42:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8HDpCn03958 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 13:51:12 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A question on Maastricht Appeal#2 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 13:47:06 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00091713511201.03951@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sun, 17 Sep 2000, Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com wrote: > The appeal is at: > > http://home.worldcom.ch/fsb/maastrict.htm > > East - West bid > > 1H - 1S > 2D - 2S > ... > > up to 4S > > "The Facts: North had been told that two diamonds was game > forcing, so he understood the meaning of two spades. > I must say I'm puzzled. > First I don't understand that "the situation > became fully game forcing" bit. At the table > North told his opponent that 2D _was_ GF. > If so then IM(H)O 2D looks alertable. > And certainly alertable is 1S. Any comments? What are the relevant WBF alerting rules? The ACBL has a general rule that strong bids that sound weak, weak bids that sound strong, and any bid which has a meaning the opponents cannot be expected to understand are alertable. However, with the variety of systems in effect in international events, such a rule wouldn't work well, because the expected meaning of a bid depends on the expected system. 2D is not artificial, but it is a bid that can be made on minimum hands in most systems, so it would seem to require an alert as a game-forcing bid based on having an unexpected meaning. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 18 06:52:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8HKqDI18082 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 06:52:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8HKq6t18078 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 06:52:07 +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 QAA18858 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 16:52:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA27698 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 16:52:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 16:52:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200009172052.QAA27698@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > North South > 2D (i) 2H (ii) > Pass (iii) > > (i) I have either a weak two in Hearts or a weak > two in Spades or else I have one of a number > of varieties of strong hands > (ii) If you have a Weak Two in Hearts I do not > wish to compete at any higher level than this Or perhaps -- and of course I do not know what the partnership actually played -- the 2H bid if non-vulnerable means "pass this if undoubled regardless of your hand." If so, the opponents are certainly entitled to a proper entry on the convention card and an alert and full explanation at the table, but it isn't obvious to me why the convention would become Brown Sticker. This is quite a difficult convention to defend against, so perhaps it _should_ be Brown Sticker. I'm just not sure what in the rules _makes_ it so. What are the Brown Sticker rules for responses? Is the problem that the agreement was not on the convention card? If that's it, then I don't see how Brown Sticker comes into the question. If it's required to be on the card and isn't there, it's illegal, is it not? L40B comes to mind. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 18 07:25:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8HLOBx18112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 07:24:11 +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 e8HLO4t18108 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 07:24:05 +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 RAA19892 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:24:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA28198 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:24:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:24:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200009172124.RAA28198@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ It is a moot point! The key statement is this:- > " EXCEPTION (to Brown Sticker classification): > A two level opening bid showing a weak two in > either major with or without the option of strong hand > types, as described in the WBF Conventions Booklet." Aha! I had failed to notice the part about "as described...." Yes, if the permission specifically includes required responses, of course that makes the same initial convention with a different system of responses back into Brown Sticker. (Does the Booklet in fact prescribe responses? Could someone remind us where the booklet is to be found?) Sorry for the confusion in my earlier message. I should have read the entire thread before posting. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 18 07:28:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8HLQoH18125 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 07:26:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.0.213]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8HLQht18121 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 07:26:44 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 4367E9073; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:13:46 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:12:07 -0400 To: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] A question on Maastricht Appeal#2 Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:20 PM +0300 9/17/00, Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com wrote: >The appeal is at: > >http://home.worldcom.ch/fsb/maastrict.htm > >East - West bid > >1H - 1S >2D - 2S >... > >North told his opponent that 2D _was_ GF. >If so then 2D looks alertable. >And certainly alertable is 1S (which showed 11+). Any comments? In the ACBL both of these bids would be require alerts. In checking the WBF's policy I'm pleased to find that it's substantially shorter than the ACBL's. On the other hand I can't say that I understand it. In particular it's not clear to me what 41.2b's "special understanding" means. In the ACBL it would mean "special in that it differs from its meaning in the Standard American bidding system." In the WBF I'd expect it to mean "special in that your opponents are unlikely to know what it means." Here is the WBF policy, in its entirety. I found it at http://www.bridge.gr/dept/Rules/rules.htm ========================= 41. Appendix 3: WBF Alerting Policy 41.1 Preamble a) The objective is to have a uniform WBF policy which is applied to all WBF events. b) It is not intended that this should over-ride Alerting Policies developed by the Zone or NBOs. c) Players who participate in WBF events are expected to protect themselves to a large extent. They are also expected to observe the spirit of the Laws as well as the letter. Full disclosure is vital. d) The Policy has been made as simple as possible. Players, however, are expected to alert whenever there is doubt. (N.B. Where screens are in use, an alert on one side but not on the other does not necessarily imply an infraction.) 41.2 Policy The following classes of calls should be alerted: a) Conventional bids should be alerted, non-conventional bids should not. (A Convention is a call that serves by partnership agreement to convey a meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named.) b) Those bids which have special meanings or which are based on or lead to special understandings between the partners. (A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization). See Law 40(b). c) Non-forcing jump changes of suit responses to opening bids or overcalls, and non-forcing new suit responses by an unpassed hand to opening bids of one of a suit. The following calls should not be alerted (except when screens are in use): a) All doubles. b) Any no-trump bid which suggests a balanced or semi-balanced hand, or suggests a no-trump contract. c) All bids, with the exception of conventional opening suit bids, at the four level or higher. ========================= How would I apply the policy to the GF 2D call here, assuming that it was forcing to game? 41.2a) Non-conventional bids should not be alerted. Not alertable. 41.2b) Those bids which have special meanings should be alerted. Alertable. Now I'm in doubt! 41.1d) Players are expected to alert whenever there is doubt. OK, alertable. Why did the TD and committee rule as they did? I don't know. I'd have liked to see the director and the committee cite the section of the Alerting Policy they based their rulings upon. I am giving them the benefit of the doubt when I assume that they did refer to the Alerting Policy, since there's no reference to it in the writeup. I am also curious as to why this decision was not published in the Maastricht daily bulletin. The claim was that only "interesting" decisions would be published, but I find that everyone is interested in knowing what they must alert. Adam Wildavsky -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 18 08:19:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8HMJ0v18156 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 08:19:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f183.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.183]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8HMItt18152 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 08:18:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 15:18:47 -0700 Received: from 172.155.120.27 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:18:47 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.155.120.27] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 15:18:47 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Sep 2000 22:18:47.0744 (UTC) FILETIME=[3FE54400:01C020F5] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Wayne Burrows" >And my point is that this decision is inspite of and not in accordance with >the laws of the game: > >Definitions >Convention - 1. 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. 2. Defender's play that serves to convey a meaning by >agreement >rather than inference. > >Pass in this auction is a 'A call that shows willingness to play in the >denomination named hearts'. > >L30C. When Pass Is a Convention >When the pass out of rotation is a convention, Law 31, not this Law, will >apply. A pass is a convention if, by special agreement, it promises more >than a specified amount of strength, or if it artificially promises or >denies values other than in the last suit named. > >Pass of 2h neither promises values in hearts or in spades nor does it deny >them. > >Therefore it is not a convention. > >Therefore it can not be a Brown Sticker Convention. I find no flaw with this logic, but remember that you're on BLML. ;) Perhaps I got lost in this discussion, but I thought the point was that when P does not show a weak-2 in hearts hand in the auction "2D-p-2H-p-p" that the 2D opening becomes a BSC. And maybe the definition of convention should include something like, "all partnership-agreed responses to a previous conventional bid are also conventions." -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 Mon Sep 18 09:50:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8HNoJu18237 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:50:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8HNoBt18229 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:50:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.29] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13aoCC-0007ox-00; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:50:05 +0100 Message-ID: <001e01c02102$2200c1a0$1d5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Adam Wildavsky" Cc: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] A question on Maastricht Appeal#2 Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:50:10 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 10:12 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] A question on Maastricht Appeal#2 > At 10:20 PM +0300 9/17/00, Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com wrote: > >The appeal is at: > > > >http://home.worldcom.ch/fsb/maastrict.htm > > > >East - West bid > > > >1H - 1S > >2D - 2S > >... > > > >North told his opponent that 2D _was_ GF. > >If so then 2D looks alertable. > >And certainly alertable is 1S (which showed 11+). Any comments? > > In the ACBL both of these bids would be require alerts. In checking > the WBF's policy I'm pleased to find that it's substantially shorter > than the ACBL's. On the other hand I can't say that I understand it. > In particular it's not clear to me what 41.2b's "special > understanding" means. In the ACBL it would mean "special in that it > differs from its meaning in the Standard American bidding system." In > the WBF I'd expect it to mean "special in that your opponents are > unlikely to know what it means." > +=+ This last statement is broadly correct. However, non-conventional bids are not alertable on account of their strength or weakness [with exceptions - see 41.2(c).] The methods played meant that the combined strength of the hand was fully revealed when responder took the auction past 2H. To a player in international competitions who is inclined to double the opponents for penalties I can offer this advice: if, behind screens, your double is to be based upon an assumption that opponents do not know what they are doing and have got out of their depth, pause a little to make some enquiries. If you make the assumption and do not protect your back by first seeking information you are likely to live or die by the table score. ~ 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 Sep 18 09:50:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8HNoHD18236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:50:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8HNo9t18227 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:50:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.29] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13aoCB-0007ox-00; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:50:03 +0100 Message-ID: <001d01c02102$20fbd4c0$1d5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200009172052.QAA27698@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 23:55:48 +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 To: Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 9:52 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more > > This is quite a difficult convention to defend against, so perhaps it > _should_ be Brown Sticker. I'm just not sure what in the rules _makes_ > it so. What are the Brown Sticker rules for responses? > > Is the problem that the agreement was not on the convention card? If > that's it, then I don't see how Brown Sticker comes into the question. > If it's required to be on the card and isn't there, it's illegal, is it > not? L40B comes to mind. > +=+ The immediate problem was using a call that was the subject of a concealed partnership understanding. The BS question arises because the TAC referred to it as such. The argument is: 1. Multi 2D is inherently a Brown Sticker convention, because there is not a specified suit common to and present in all its weak forms. 2. As a concession it is excepted from BS on condition that it is played 'as described in the WBF Conventions Booklet'. 3. The description in the CB includes material as to responses. These specify that 2H/S responses are 'pass or correct'. 4. There is mention of random passes of responses in an advisory note. This describes the method as a 'variation' and prescribes that the convention must be described differently on the CC from the standard convention. Ergo the TAC ruling deems it not the convention as described etc. 5. So in the TAC view it loses the protection of the 'exception' and resumes its inherent BS form. ~ 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 Sep 18 10:51:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8I0ojD18272 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 10:50:45 +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 (f136.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.136]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8I0oet18268 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 10:50:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:50:32 -0700 Received: from 172.155.120.27 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:50:32 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.155.120.27] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:50:32 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Sep 2000 00:50:32.0501 (UTC) FILETIME=[72C0EE50:01C0210A] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Grattan Endicott" >+=+ The immediate problem was using a call >that was the subject of a concealed partnership >understanding. > The BS question arises because the TAC >referred to it as such. The argument is: >1. Multi 2D is inherently a Brown Sticker convention, >because there is not a specified suit common to >and present in all its weak forms. >2. As a concession it is excepted from BS on condition >that it is played 'as described in the WBF Conventions >Booklet'. >3. The description in the CB includes material as >to responses. These specify that 2H/S responses >are 'pass or correct'. >4. There is mention of random passes of responses >in an advisory note. This describes the method as a >'variation' and prescribes that the convention must >be described differently on the CC from the >standard convention. Ergo the TAC ruling deems >it not the convention as described etc. >5. So in the TAC view it loses the protection of >the 'exception' and resumes its inherent BS form. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I'll bite. From where does the power to regulate conventions based on their systemic responses, which are not part of the legal definition of a convention, come? -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 Mon Sep 18 10:52:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8I0qmG18284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 10:52:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta6-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta6-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.19]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8I0qht18280 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 10:52:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.101.81]) by mta6-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20000918005442.HFOA1192841.mta6-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:54:42 +1200 Message-ID: <005c01c02109$fa7ea540$aa6860cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <002e01c020e3$d3844560$8b5908c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more > CORRECTION Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:45:22 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > +=+ It is a moot point! The key statement is this:- > > " EXCEPTION (to Brown Sticker classification): > > A two level opening bid *in a minor* showing a weak two in > > either major with or without the option of strong hand > > types, as described in the WBF Conventions Booklet." This is what I found on the ecats site - it is a bit hard to read as it has funny (incorrect) characters instead of suit symbols. I have not tried to correct them - sorry. MULTI 2{ (... 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 use a more descriptive adjective. After this, replace the word "or" with the strong hand types, using semi-colons. Here is a proper entry on the card: e.g. MULTI 2{(random weak 2M; 17-24 3-suiter; 25+ BAL) (Inside the card), you must include a full description of range and style for the weak type. Responder to 2{ assumes a weak-two and bids as follows: Pass: Long diamonds; 2]: P/C; 2[: P/C, willing to play at least 3] opposite a weak 2]; 2NT: Forcing, showing genuine values, asking for clarification (specify rebids); All other heart bids are P/C (include something descriptive about STYLE here). You must have agreements about responses of 3m and 4m. You must have agreements about opener's immediate continuations with the strong hand type(s) over simple and jump responses. You must have agreements in competition (including Pass and RDBL). Note: If you meet ALL of those conditions you may write nothing more than: MULTI 2{(loose weak 2M; etc ...) in this section. Note: If you have some special agreements, such as: "might pass a 2] response randomly with a weak 2[" or "pass over an opponent's DBL of { means nothing," such variations are sufficiently important to merit "QUOTES" around the NAME. Your opponents will want to know about this sort of thing in advance. My notes: 1. It seems a 2h response is described as Pass or Correct - there is nothing to say on which hands you should Pass and which you should correct - this must be a matter of individual judgement or partnership style. 2. The Multi "as described in the WBF Conventions Booklet." includes the possibility of a random pass of 2h? One just has to put it in quotes on ones card and possibly a description. But it is still part of the description in the CB. 3. IMO "random" is a poor choice of words. Grattan is right (below) in that the Appeal Committee has interpreted the BSC statement in a limited way. However if this is a valid interpretation the BSC statement is ambiguous at best. I think it is wrong. The BSC regulations clearly define Conventions and therefore the subject of those regulations are conventions. The laws define convention as "a call" and not as its system of responses which may or may not be conventions in their own right. That is the Multi allowed is a 2c or 2d bid having allowed that bid only conventional responses and rebids can be legitimately regulated. And a pass of 2h simply does not meet the definition of a conventional call. > > > > The AC interpreted this statement as limited to > > the description of the opening bid in the CB. They did > > not consider it extended to the later advisory note > > that said : " If you have some special arrangements, > > such as 'might pass a 2H/S response randomly .....'. > > such variations are sufficiently important to merit > > "quotes" around the name of the convention." > > This note, written for a purpose that has nothing > > to do with BS or not, does classify the agreement > > as a 'variation' of the multi as described in the > > booklet. I think the AC can make a good case. The variation you describe is not a variation of the convention but of that convention's system/style of responses. And I think a better case can be made against their view. 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 Sep 18 12:30:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8I2ULo18325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:30:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8I2UGt18321 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:30:17 +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 MAA11386 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:25:46 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 13:26:22 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:58:17 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 18/09/2000 01:23:24 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner asked: "What are the Brown Sticker rules for responses?" A description of a conventional response which ought to be Brown Sticker: 1. The convention has an unfairly wide range, from a Yarborough to slam values. 2. The convention promises neither an anchor suit, nor any particular shape. I suggest that not only should this conventional response be classified as BSC, but also any system incorporating this convention be defined as a HUM. Even the name of this convention is a psyche - "Simple" Stayman. Best wishes R -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 18 13:35:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8I3YYG18356 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 13:34:34 +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 e8I3YRt18352 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 13:34:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.105] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13arhH-000IJS-00; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 04:34:23 +0100 Message-ID: <000201c02121$77e4e1e0$695908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] Hurricane Gordon (fierce) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 04:33:29 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 14:15:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from 398167120worldnet ([12.78.220.218]) by mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with SMTP id <20000918041451.HUL4085.mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net@398167120worldnet>; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 04:14:51 +0000 Message-ID: <000401c02126$f9faa200$dadc4e0c@att.net> From: "Joan Gerard" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "bridge-laws" References: <000201c02121$77e4e1e0$695908c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Hurricane Gordon (fierce) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:14:43 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi Grattan, I just spoke with another friend of mine who lives in Tampa. While planes were not flying in or out of there, things were not too bad and all is well now.... It is 12:05am - Mon. morning. Take care - good to be with you in Maastricht. Luv, Joan -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 18 14:32:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8I4WAN18403 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 14:32:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8I4W1t18395 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 14:32:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.88] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13asay-000KsJ-00; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 05:31:57 +0100 Message-ID: <003801c02129$826f93a0$695908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Todd Zimnoch" , "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 05:25:01 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 1:50 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more ------------------------ \x/ ------------------------ > I'll bite. From where does the power to regulate conventions > based on their systemic responses, which are not part of the > legal definition of a convention, come? > +=+ I am male and not of a disposition to be interested in the bite of another male. But as to your question: from the power to include in the regulations governing the use of a convention such conditions for its use as the regulator may determine. As, for example, that a conventional 2C response to a balanced or semi-balanced One No Trump opener may only be used if the minimum agreed strength of the latter is not less than ten high card points. ;-)))) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ p.s. what is the symbol for 'provocative'? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 18 14:32:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8I4WBa18404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 14:32:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8I4W2t18396 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 14:32:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.88] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13asax-000KsJ-00; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 05:31:55 +0100 Message-ID: <003701c02129$818dbf20$695908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Wayne Burrows" , "Bridge Laws" References: <002e01c020e3$d3844560$8b5908c3@dodona> <005c01c02109$fa7ea540$aa6860cb@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more > CORRECTION Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 05:21:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 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, September 18, 2000 1:45 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more > CORRECTION -----------------------\x/------------------ > My notes: > > Grattan is right (below) in that the Appeal Committee has interpreted the > BSC statement in a limited way. > > However if this is a valid interpretation the BSC statement is ambiguous at > best. > > I think it is wrong. > +=+ We agree that you think the TAC was wrong. ~ 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 Sep 18 16:15:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8I6Ele18460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 16:14:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f128.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8I6Egt18456 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 16:14:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 23:14:34 -0700 Received: from 172.143.73.107 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 06:14:34 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.143.73.107] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 23:14:34 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Sep 2000 06:14:34.0449 (UTC) FILETIME=[B70EC410:01C02137] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Grattan Endicott" >----- Original Message ----- > > I'll bite. From where does the power to regulate conventions > > based on their systemic responses, which are not part of the > > legal definition of a convention, come? > > >+=+ I am male and not of a disposition to be interested in >the bite of another male. But as to your question: Was that really American slang? >from the power to include in the regulations governing the >use of a convention such conditions for its use as the >regulator may determine. > As, for example, that a conventional 2C response >to a balanced or semi-balanced One No Trump opener >may only be used if the minimum agreed strength of >the latter is not less than ten high card points. ;-)))) > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ But a 9-count semi-balanced 1NT opener is not a convention, though I guess you're trying to stress that pre-conditions as well as post-conditions for the use of a convention could exist. Fair play, but the laws might be simpler if they just read that SO can regulate the use of all bids. Seems to be what happens in practice anyways. At this point, I'm not certain why a distinction needs to be made between conventions and not-conventions other than for insufficient bids. >p.s. what is the symbol for 'provocative'? As an emoticon >=) and >:-) have been used for raised eyebrows, but (thankfully) they never really caught on. -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 Mon Sep 18 16:15:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8I6F8Z18466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 16:15:08 +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 e8I6F4t18462 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 16:15:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id QAA04686 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 16:10:36 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 17:11:11 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Five-and-a-half card majors To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 17:12:31 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 18/09/2000 05:08:13 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Reference: Bridge World, January 1972 page 25 In a matchpoint pairs event you hold as dealer 107xxx KQx Axx KJ. In your system you require a five card major to open in 1st or 2nd seat. You evaluate the weak spades as only a four card suit, and open 1D. Pard responds 1H, you raise to 2H. This is passed around to RHO, who balances with 2S. You double, and +300 is second top on the board. When RHO notices you have five spades, the TD is called. [In real life the TD totally mangled his handling of the situation.] Question 1: Putting a spade in with the diamonds was deliberate, but was it gross enough to count as a psyche? Question 2: L40E1 states that regulations may not restrict style and judgement, only method. Which of these two options is 5&1/2 card majors? Question 3: Assuming that 5&1/2 card majors counts as style, should it be pre-alerted? Best wishes R -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 18 17:24:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8I7MSE18531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 17:22:28 +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 e8I7MOt18527 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 17:22:24 +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 e8I7MNK29705 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 18:22:23 +1100 (EST) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 18:22:21 +1100 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@medvesajt.anu.edu.au To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Five-and-a-half card majors 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 Mon, 18 Sep 2000 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > Reference: Bridge World, January 1972 page 25 > > In a matchpoint pairs event you hold as dealer 107xxx KQx Axx KJ. In > your system you require a five card major to open in 1st or 2nd seat. You > evaluate the weak spades as only a four card suit, and open 1D. Pard > responds 1H, you raise to 2H. This is passed around to RHO, who balances > with 2S. You double, and +300 is second top on the board. When RHO > notices you have five spades, the TD is called. > > [In real life the TD totally mangled his handling of the situation.] > > Question 1: Putting a spade in with the diamonds was deliberate, but was > it gross enough to count as a psyche? No. 107xx KQx Axx KJx would be a completely unremarkable 1D opening. Of course this action now creates an understanding of a possible very weak 5M for a 1m opener - which is a method that may be regulated. > Question 2: L40E1 states that regulations may not restrict style and > judgement, only method. Which of these two options is 5&1/2 card majors? Inasmuch as methods are described by large-scale factors (length of longest suit, number of HCP, number of honours in a strong suit, etc.) and style & judgement are described by other factors (quality of a suit that need not be "strong", relative lengths of suits, intermediates, position, vulnerability, quality of opposition, etc.) then this question is between the two worlds. The method of opening a suit that need not be the longest (i.e. canape) can be subject to regulation. Where the conditions permit canape openings and disclosure requirements are met then making such an opening is a matter of style & judgement. Where the conditions do not permit a canape opening, or have required disclosure which has not occured, then the opener is in breach of the conditions. I submit, therefore, that 5&1/2 card majors is a method, not a style. > Question 3: Assuming that 5&1/2 card majors counts as style, should it be > pre-alerted? Yes... something along the lines of minimum suit quality to open 1M... it would not be clear to most players that this means opening 1m with a 5M sometimes, so you would need to spell it out... 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 Mon Sep 18 17:59:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8I7xWF18589 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 17:59:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8I7xQt18585 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 17:59:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.113] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13avpe-0005Ie-00; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 08:59:18 +0100 Message-ID: <002401c02146$7a476320$715608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Todd Zimnoch" , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 08:54:53 +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: Monday, September 18, 2000 7:14 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > But a 9-count semi-balanced 1NT opener is not a convention, though I > guess you're trying to stress that pre-conditions as well as post-conditions > for the use of a convention could exist. > +=+ Do exist +=+ > > Fair play, but the laws might be simpler if they just read that SO can > regulate the use of all bids. Seems to be what happens in practice anyways. > At this point, I'm not certain why a distinction needs to be made between > conventions and not-conventions other than for insufficient bids. > +=+ My belief is that we should remove two words from the laws: 'agreement' and 'convention', and replace them with 'partnership uderstanding'. It would mean a rephrasing or reworking of the insufficient bid law, but there are independent arguments for 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 Mon Sep 18 18:48:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8I8mA818616 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 18:48:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8I8m6t18612 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 18:48:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([210.55.46.171]) by mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20000918084835.KQFJ641613.mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop>; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 20:48:35 +1200 Message-ID: <000801c0214c$62e3c7e0$ab2e37d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Mark Abraham" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Five-and-a-half card majors Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 20:42:29 +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: "Mark Abraham" : > : > Question 1: Putting a spade in with the diamonds was deliberate, but was : > it gross enough to count as a psyche? : : No. 107xx KQx Axx KJx would be a completely unremarkable 1D opening. Of : course this action now creates an understanding of a possible very weak : 5M for a 1m opener - which is a method that may be regulated. Why? This would not necessarily be a convention. : : > Question 2: L40E1 states that regulations may not restrict style and : > judgement, only method. Which of these two options is 5&1/2 card majors? : : Inasmuch as methods are described by large-scale factors (length of : longest suit, number of HCP, number of honours in a strong suit, etc.) and : style & judgement are described by other factors (quality of a suit that : need not be "strong", relative lengths of suits, intermediates, position, : vulnerability, quality of opposition, etc.) then this question is between : the two worlds. : : The method of opening a suit that need not be the longest (i.e. canape) : can be subject to regulation. Where the conditions permit canape openings : and disclosure requirements are met then making such an opening is a : matter of style & judgement. Where the conditions do not permit a canape : opening, or have required disclosure which has not occured, then the opener : is in breach of the conditions. I don't agree that canape is subject to regulations. Only conventions can be regulated. If canape is not allowed then one couldn't play 5-card majors as minor openings in that structure are a species of canape. 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 Sep 18 19:58:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8I9wFm18649 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Sep 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 mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8I9wAt18645 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 19:58:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([210.55.46.171]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20000918100011.PBCS832940.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 22:00:11 +1200 Message-ID: <003801c02156$2d286520$ab2e37d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Five-and-a-half card majors Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 21:52:34 +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: : : Question 1: Putting a spade in with the diamonds was deliberate, but was : it gross enough to count as a psyche? No : Question 2: L40E1 states that regulations may not restrict style and : judgement, only method. Only with regard to both members of the partnership playing the same method. :Which of these two options is 5&1/2 card majors? Style and judgement you are treating a poor 5-card suit as if it was a four card suit this is a judgement call. This is equivalent to opening 1nt with a five card major that you can never show - you are treating this hand as a balanced hand of whatever range without a five card major. : Question 3: Assuming that 5&1/2 card majors counts as style, should it be : pre-alerted? : This is tough. If style necessarily needs to be pre-alerted then there will be alot of pre-alerting as no two players have the same style and judgement. I think that it is general bridge knowledge that players judgement vary and therefore not necessarily a part of special partnership understandings that need to be disclosed. On the other hand concealing even a weak five card major by opening a 4-card minor in a 5-card major system is possibly sufficiently rare that it may not be reasonably expected that an opponent will understand it unless it has been disclosed. 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 Sep 18 22:26:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8ICOhV18833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 22:24:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r16.mx.aol.com (imo-r16.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.70]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8ICOYt18829 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 22:24:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.15.) id 9.23.1081cb5 (4242); Mon, 18 Sep 2000 08:23:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <23.1081cb5.26f76347@aol.com> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 08:23:35 EDT Subject: [BLML] Re: Hurricane Gordon (fierce) To: Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk, 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 Thanks all for the concern. We lost one palm tree in the lakeside yard, and lots of little branches. I've seen a lot worse. The winds in some of our thunderstorms get much higher than what we had. Not enough rain to help the lake. All else is fine. Ricahrd and Sue are leaving this afternoon for the long trek to Aussieland - not as long as it was before airplanes, but still a long one. Best to all, 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 Sep 18 22:37:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8ICbd518880 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 22:37:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8ICbTt18876 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 22:37:30 +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 OAA15106; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 14:35:51 +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 OAA25182; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 14:36:59 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000918144708.008761f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 14:47:08 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, piret@dice.ucl.ac.be From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Five-and-a-half card majors 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 e8ICbXt18877 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 14:36:34 +0200 >To: richard.hills@immi.gov.au, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au >From: alain gottcheiner >Subject: Re: [BLML] Five-and-a-half card majors >In-Reply-To: > >At 17:12 18/09/00 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >> >>Reference: Bridge World, January 1972 page 25 >> >>In a matchpoint pairs event you hold as dealer 107xxx KQx Axx KJ. In >>your system you require a five card major to open in 1st or 2nd seat. You >>evaluate the weak spades as only a four card suit, and open 1D. Pard >>responds 1H, you raise to 2H. This is passed around to RHO, who balances >>with 2S. You double, and +300 is second top on the board. When RHO >>notices you have five spades, the TD is called. > >AG : since 5½ card majors are my style, I will dare give here my feelings about the case. > >>Question 1: Putting a spade in with the diamonds was deliberate, but was >>it gross enough to count as a psyche? > >AG : no, it is a personal view of the hand you have. It's like deciding to open 1NT on 4441 pattern with bare K or Q. You won't even alert it. However, you might not ignore the second sentence of Law 75B (sorry, I have only a french version at hand, so I will let you look at it). > >>Question 2: L40E1 states that regulations may not restrict style and >>judgement, only method. Which of these two options is 5&1/2 card majors? > >AG : judgment. To state 107xxx counts as a 4-card suit is like not opening a weak-two bid on 107xxxx and an outside A and K. > >>Question 3: Assuming that 5&1/2 card majors counts as style, should it be >>pre-alerted? > >AG : I should. In fact, I do. The second line on my convention card, in my two most frequent partnerships, reads, in bold capitals (this is the only thusly enhanced line on the CC, so it's quite flashy) : >'very weak suit systematically downgraded by one card in most sequences' >The complementary notes list the most frequent cases : opening 1 of a minor with a honorless major ; responding 1NT, bypassing a honorless major ; opening a weak two-bid (in fact, it's equivalent, a Multi) with a weak 7-card suit ; opening a good 3-card minor rather than a weak 4-card one. > >I had only once the director called against me in such a case ; the hand was something like : > >97432 / A10x / Q10 / AKx > >and the bidding, playing Walsh, was : >1C 1D >1NT 3NT > >(after all, this amounts to assuming that this hand is a weak 1NT opening, that classical Acolists would prefer open 1NT rather than 1S, which seems reasonable) > >The dialog between the TD and me went approximately like this : > >- Why did you open 1C with a 5-card major ? >- Well, to me, it is much more like a 4-carder. I decided I had 4324. >- Have you ever done this before ? >- Occasionally. >- Do you realize that your opponents have the right to be warned about that idiosyncrasy of yours ? >- Yes, but to alert it would be impossible, since such an assimilation could happen in nearly any sequence. But look at our convention card ! (pointing at the flashy line) > >The TD accepted it. > >On another occasion, the opponent, trying hard to reconstruct hands, asked my partner (dummy) (my partners often end up as dummies) whether I could have a 4-card major after the bidding went 1D-1NT. He answered 'yes, but a honorless one, then'. As the opponent had cleverly detected, this was the case (8xxx spades). >So it seems like competent opponents are wary of such possibilities. > >Pre-alerting them seems difficult (dozens of cases should be mentioned) but surely it should be very explicitly mentioned on the CC. > > 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 Mon Sep 18 23:04:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8ID4SS18907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 23:04:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8ID4Mt18903 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 23:04:22 +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 PAA24960; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 15:02:46 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id PAA12966; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 15:03:54 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000918151403.00873100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 15:14:03 +0200 To: "David Martin" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] voided claim In-Reply-To: <006701c020df$7f1a4dc0$b61278d5@davicaltd> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 20:41 17/09/00 +0100, David Martin wrote: >####### Try cashing HQ, H9, CK, CJ & DA. After following to this lot, >East can only keep 3 cards and so is automatically squeezed in Spades and >Clubs. Admittedly this is no longer a double squeeze. Perhaps this is the >point that you were making? ####### AG : I remember a deal where some Mr Sharif claimed on a double squeeze, which was conditional (either the anchor suit is held by both, and it will be a double squeeze, or the distibution is more unbalanced than expected, and only one player will be squeezed ; it might be either opponent). But the mechanism (order of cards to play) of the squeeze is the same, so the same statement will work for all three cases. 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 Sep 18 23:14:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8IDEjZ18924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 23:14:45 +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-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 e8IDEdt18920 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 23:14:39 +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 e8IDTVV70891 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:29:32 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000918082315.00ab42f0@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, 18 Sep 2000 09:14:47 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more In-Reply-To: <001601c01f68$4a225e00$045408c3@dodona> References: <3.0.1.32.20000914235644.01402c90@pop.mindspring.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 06:51 PM 9/15/00, Grattan wrote: > Since it is a legitimate use, for example, of >powers given in Law 40D to say: "It is a condition >of the use of any convention that it may not be >used with a partnership understanding that >allows of an opening one bid in a suit on ..........." >my view is that the pretence of confining >system regulation to conventional bids etc. >is a delusion and futile. Therefore I do not >understand why we do not bring the game >into the real world by altering 40D to read >"Partnership understandings may be >regulated by Zonal authorities or by NBOs, >and in the Conditions of Contest for any >tournament under the auspices of the >World Bridge Federation." Indeed, as a >general principle I advocate removal of >the word 'convention' from the law book >and its replacement throughout with >'partnership understanding'. Out there in the real world there is a particularly large and influential Zonal authority run by 25 people who apparently believe that the game of bridge would be well served, and that new players would come flocking into the fold, if only they could purge the game of any agreements, methods or systems which they do not personally favor. Several years ago, we had a long thread on L40D. There was a decided difference in approach between two groups, one of which took the view that the primary benefit of L40D was to encourage SOs to regulate the game differently as appropriate to the needs of their local constituency, the other of which took the view that its primary purpose was to constrain local regulators sufficiently to prevent those who would over-regulate partnership methods to the point where the game would become unrecognizable to outsiders from doing so. A sort of glass-half-full vs. glass-half-empty thing. Then somebody looked at who was posting which messages, and realized that the folks with the latter attitude were almost all from North American, while those with the former were almost all from elsewhere. Grattan's argument is entirely sound, insofar as his conclusion follows from his premise. To some (Grattan among them), it therefore suggests that the WBF should implement his conclusion (by eliminating the words of L40D that make it at all restrictive). To me, however, it suggests that the WBF should reverse the foolishness that constitutes his premise ("it is a legitimate use..."). What we have now is a law that appears, on its face, to restrict the authority of SOs to regulating only certain classes of methods (conventions and light opening bids), coupled with interpretive loopholes that actually give the SOs carte blanche to effectively regulate whatever methods they choose to. The result is transparent hypocrisy, and Grattan and I agree that something should be done to rid ourselves of it. Grattan, however, would do so by eliminating the restrictions in the law so as to make the existence of those loopholes unnecessary, while I would do so by eliminating the loopholes so as to make the restrictive language of L40D once again meaningful. Nobody favors hypocrisy. But before we go about eliminating it, we must decide the real issue. Do we want the law and its supporting interpretations to restrict the class of methods which SOs may regulate, or do we want them to give them unrestricted authority to regulate any methods they choose to? As someone who has been playing bridge for almost 40 years under the auspices of a Zonal organization which has consistently proven itself quite adept at regulating methods as restrictively as the law can possibly interpreted to allow (and, often, then some), my vote is clear. 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 Sep 18 23:29:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8IDTPf18939 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 23:29:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hermes.isi.com (hermes.isi.com [192.73.222.27]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8IDTIt18935 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 23:29:19 +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 GAA28908 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 06:30:52 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard Willey" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: RE: [BLML] BSC - more Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:32:10 -0400 Message-ID: <000801c02174$d91f3d40$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: <4.3.2.7.1.20000918082315.00ab42f0@127.0.0.1> 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 Eric said what I was trying to write much more concisely (and just plain better). I agree completely with his comments. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOcYZWrFdMFbo8dHHEQLWtACgp/xHDPHjTNLeKqPdCAnnJzSCuCgAn0Do Z4T0nbnwfCZx1BIdzklQQ5Wu =xy2M -----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 Sep 19 00:00:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8IE0Oj18984 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 00:00:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8IE0Ht18980 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 00:00:18 +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 e8IE0DT66446 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 10:00:13 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000918094244.00b48a80@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, 18 Sep 2000 10:01:27 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] What does the fast pass over skip bid demonstrably suggests? In-Reply-To: <39C46B12.8B6297A9@eduhi.at> References: <00e601c01e83$47cf7060$71d736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <39C32F72.4ED60E55@eduhi.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:56 AM 9/17/00, Petrus wrote: >Skip bids tend to create UI situations regardless of the stop-card >regulations in force. In Austria, the player making the skip bid is >required to leave the stop-card on the table for about 10 seconds, and >when he removes it LHO should call. This should take care of the >problem, but although this regulation has been in force for more than 20 >years (skip bidder had to say "GO" in the pre-bidding-box days), about >half of the players don't understand the regulation and remove the >stop-card immediately. >When the TD is called, in three out of four cases there will be no >agreement on whether there has been a hesitation (complaints about fast >passes are extremely rare), and TDs tend to accept that there has been >some noticeable break in tempo, even if only for a few seconds - >triggering L16A. >An UI situation restricts the calls available to "offender's" partner >and thereby creates an advantage to the other side - so you may easily >improve your legal situation by the skip bid in that RHO is often barred >from selecting a call only half of his peers would have made. >Which is why I find nothing unfair in returning the UI burden to the >skip-bidder's side by a fast bidder's literal application of L73D1 >"maintain steady tempo". I prefer the ACBL's approach to this issue. Their position is that when a player makes a skip bid, his LHO should hesitate for about 10 seconds before calling. The purpose of the stop card or verbal skip-bid warning is simply to remind LHO of that obligation; the obligation remains regardless of whether or how the warning was given. In practice, however, this does not make the correct use of the stop card meaningless. When a player who has not been correctly warned to hesitate fails to do so, the TD/AC will at least take into account the possibility that he is ignorant of, or has momentarily forgotten, his obligation to hesitate, so that his failure to hesitate carries no particular inference that may constitute UI to his partner; they will find that there was transmission of UI (a pre-requisite to finding use of UI, which is the actual infraction in question) only if that is rather blatantly suggested by the facts. Conversely, when a player who has been properly warned to hesitate fails to do so, the finding that his failure consituted UI to his partner is virtually automatic. At least that's the philosophy. Others have pointed out that this almost always breaks down in practice when the player who fails to hesitate properly passes. But that's a problem of implementation that has nothing to do with the soundness of the professed approach. 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 Sep 19 00:05:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8IE5BL18996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 00:05:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8IE4kt18992 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 00:04:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.15.) id p.c.ac9f390 (9677) for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 10:04:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 10:04:08 EDT Subject: [BLML] subscribing To: 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 Please enter me as a subscriber. Richard Grenside - Australia E-Mail address is: rgrenside@ozemail.com.au Thank you. Richard 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 Tue Sep 19 00:56:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8IEtSH19034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 00:55:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8IEtLt19030 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 00:55:22 +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 e8IFAJV78207 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 11:10:19 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000918101418.00b3d7c0@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, 18 Sep 2000 10:56:12 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more In-Reply-To: <01e801c02088$14ca0980$7e2f37d2@laptop> 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 05:16 AM 9/17/00, Wayne wrote: >From: "Todd Zimnoch" >Wayne Burrows > > >Multi 2d (or 2c or whatever) is a convention showing certain types of >hands > > > > > >and > > > > > >the conventional responses (standard) of 2h/s/nt are three separate > > >conventions. > > > > I don't see how this is consistent with regulation of relay systems. > > In a relay system, bid X means nothing. But required responses Y, Z, and >W > > are part of the convention. If X, Y, Z, and W are all regulated >separately, > > then am I free to bid X anytime I want when it means nothing? > >But my point is that your view is not how the law book defines convention - >a convention is "a call ..." not "a system of calls..." > > > > > I'm not certain how you find regulators ignore their own regulations. > > In the ACBL, some regulations appear to ignore the law. > >Fair enough - I agree and probably should have said regulators ignor the >laws. We have a (pehaps unfortunate) tendency to characterize conventions (as is suggested by the definition of "convention" in the laws) in terms of the "meaning" they convey. I suggest that it might be far better to characterize conventions by the "information" they convey -- at minimum, it would resolve the current debate over "psychic" passes of multi reponses. The difference is that only declarative statements convey information. Imperative or interrogative statements convey meaning, but do not convey information. If you take the view that partner's Jacoby 2D response to your 1NT opening means "he is telling me to bid 2H", you cannot avoid the view that your subsequent 2H rebid is "part of" the conventional meaning of 2D. If, OTOH, you take the view that it means "he has long hearts", then your 2H rebid is simply natural. In the case at hand, some are taking the view that 2H means "he is telling me to pass with a weak 2 in hearts or to bid 2S with a weak 2 in spades", while others are taking the view that 2H means "he doesn't want to play a contract above 2H opposite a weak 2 in hearts", the former concluding that passing 2H with spades "violates" the convention, the latter conluding that passing 2H is simply a natural call conveying a willingness to play in 2H undoubled. Here is a short quiz: Q1: When partner bids Blackwood, does it mean that he (a) wants me to tell him how many aces I have, or (b) wants to know how many aces I have? Q2: Have you ever made or encountered a psychic bid of Blackwood? Q3: In 25 words or less, explain why answering (a) to Q1 and yes to Q2 constitutes a logical contradiction. 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 Sep 19 01:13:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8IFDVY19062 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 01:13:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8IFDKt19058 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 01:13:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA16305 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 11:15:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200009181515.LAA16305@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: References: Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 11:15:42 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 17 September 2000 at 17:50, "Todd Zimnoch" wrote: >>From: "Grattan Endicott" >>+=+ The immediate problem was using a call >>that was the subject of a concealed partnership >>understanding. And that's all that needs to be done, as far as the appeal goes. They bid based on a partnership understanding (note: not agreement) that the opponents were not aware of. According to their CC, they psyched, twice, in a memorable position, and that puts them into Implied Partnership Understanding territory according to the CoP. Note that I have shown here before (somewhat facetiously, but draconian enough ACs could follow my logic to the letter and not be "wrong") that it is possible under the CoP for a pair, neither of whom have psyched before in their lives, to have an implied partnership understanding according to the CoP about a particular psychic call. >> The BS question arises because the TAC >>referred to it as such. The argument is: >>1. Multi 2D is inherently a Brown Sticker convention, >>because there is not a specified suit common to >>and present in all its weak forms. >>2. As a concession it is excepted from BS on condition >>that it is played 'as described in the WBF Conventions >>Booklet'. >>3. The description in the CB includes material as >>to responses. These specify that 2H/S responses >>are 'pass or correct'. Up to here, I'm fine. >>4. There is mention of random passes of responses >>in an advisory note. This describes the method as a >>'variation' and prescribes that the convention must >>be described differently on the CC from the >>standard convention. Ergo the TAC ruling deems >>it not the convention as described etc. I'm not sure I agree with this. The description, variation and all, is in the WBF conventions booklet. The Systems Policy makes no mention of the fact that the "variation" doesn't count in the exception, so I would assume it's allowed. OTOH, I have no problem with stating that in future, this is the way it should be read. I can agree that given that the CC was not marked in accordance with the WBFCB when playing the variation, that a CPU was formed (in fact, I'd rule as harshly as I could in this case. The book explains exactly what to do in this case - if you read it enough to know that this "variation" was legal, and still didn't note it on your CC as "MULTI 2D" (random 2M, or...), then either you aren't competent enough to be playing at this level, - you can't even fill out the CC properly, *given instructions in the same paragraph as you were reading to find out if your convention was legal*, or you are deliberately concealing the PU.) But before this minute was posted - and it shouldn't have come into effect before the end of the tournament where the flaw in the Policy was pointed out - I don't think that you can punish someone for using a BSC that isn't a BSC until the minute is posted. Note that none of this impedes the AC or the Systems committee from doing what it wants - stopping this pair from doing this again in the tournament. It's a CPU, you can't play it unless it's on your CC, it's too late to put it on your CC, so sorry. Note that this probably stops them from using the "random passes" in the KO stage as well, where BSCs are allowed. >>5. So in the TAC view it loses the protection of >>the 'exception' and resumes its inherent BS form. Again, I don't think I can go with this. I would have no problems if the WBF Systems Committee decides this between tournaments - I think 2H meaning "pass with hearts, bid 2S with spades, unless you feel like it" is a convention that fits just fine in the BS category. But until it's specifically in the Systems Policy, I disagree with the TAC's reading of that Policy. Todd: > > I'll bite. From where does the power to regulate conventions based on >their systemic responses, which are not part of the legal definition of a >convention, come? > I would guess L40D, same as the rest of the "strange" convention regulations. If ZOs can deny otherwise allowable conventions, even at the fourth round of bidding, after partner has made a specific natural opening call (as the WBFLC has made clear that one can), they can certainly disallow a class of conventional calls *and put one back in as an exception, as long as a specific, defined set of conventional responses are also used*. 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 Tue Sep 19 01:28:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8IFS1h19075 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 01:28:01 +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-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 e8IFRst19071 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 01:27:55 +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 e8IFRpT72236 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 11:27:51 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000918110817.00b39dd0@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, 18 Sep 2000 11:29:05 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more In-Reply-To: <39C4B40D.72FE584A@village.uunet.be> References: <006d01c02031$d6b2c3e0$125608c3@dodona> <01ee01c0208e$7f106680$7e2f37d2@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 08:07 AM 9/17/00, Herman wrote: >I believe the pass is conventional, weak, and shows either >hearts OR spades. That could well be ruled BSC, even if the >definitions of BSC don't yet cater for it. The WBFAC has >decided it is a BSC. For a call to be a BSC, it must be a C. To be a "C" (convention), it must "convey[] a meaning other than..." If the 2D opening promised either hearts or spades, the pass would convey no meaning at all -- it would not "show[] either hearts OR spades", because the 2D bid would already have done that. Now this pair's pass did convey some meaning, as it unambiguously denied holding some of the hands (the strong ones) which might have neither hearts nor spades) which were possible based solely on the 2D opening. That made the pass conventional, which, under the WBF's current interpretation of L40D, gives them the legal "hook" to regulate it as they see fit. Now if this is what Herman was relying on in his reply to Wayne, I agree with him on the legality of the ruling. But I suspect not; I infer from the tone of Herman's reply that he would believe the pass of 2H to be conventional even if the 2D bid had unambiguously promised a weak 2 in either suit, in which case I respectfully disagree with him on the legal point at issue. But then I do not believe that the ruling, even though legally justified, is morally justified. But that's a separate issue (about which see my previous post). 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 Sep 19 01:36:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8IFacI19100 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 01:36:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8IFaVt19096 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 01:36:32 +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 LAA16733 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 11:38:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200009181538.LAA16733@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: References: Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 11:38:57 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 18 September 2000 at 12:58, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >Steve Willner asked: > >"What are the Brown Sticker rules for responses?" > >A description of a conventional response which ought to be Brown Sticker: > >1. The convention has an unfairly wide range, from a Yarborough to slam >values. > >2. The convention promises neither an anchor suit, nor any particular >shape. > >I suggest that not only should this conventional response be classified as >BSC, but also any system incorporating this convention be defined as a HUM. > >Even the name of this convention is a psyche - "Simple" Stayman. > Ah, but Simple Stayman does not include "Garbage" or "Crawling" Stayman, and by definition implies an invitational hand. At least that's the way it's taught in our beginner classes. Also, if weak, Stayman does promise at least 4-3 in the major suits, and, at least the way I play it, if it doesn't show diamonds as well, it promises 5-4 in the majors. There are much better "absurdam" bids out there, if you want them (how about a 1D response to a Precision club? 0-7 any, or 4441, unknown short suit, any strength?). But don't laugh quite that hard. At least in the ACBL, "Simple Stayman" is an *illegal convention* if used after an opening 1NT that doesn't promise 10 Work Count Points. And this has been *specifically cleared by the WBFLC* as being a legitimate use of L40D. And, of course, a perfectly good, natural, EHAA 2-bid, allowed in the A CBL in any game *including the 0-5 MP newcomer games* (though I'd actively discourage their use there - we want the newcomers to come back), makes the system YELLOW under your ABF system regulations, as it only has 14 Opeining Points (6HCP, 5332 distribution). Nothing's perfect :-) 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 Tue Sep 19 01:49:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8IFnZE19126 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 01:49:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8IFnSt19122 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 01:49:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from p05s05a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.117.6] helo=pacific) by cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13b39C-0000ga-00; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 16:47:58 +0100 Message-ID: <000201c02187$9a483960$067593c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <3.0.1.32.20000914235644.01402c90@pop.mindspring.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000918082315.00ab42f0@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 16:44:12 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: 18 September 2000 14:14 Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more > Out there in the real world there is a particularly large and influential > Zonal authority run by 25 people who apparently believe that the game of > bridge would be well served, and that new players would come flocking into > the fold, if only they could purge the game of any agreements, methods or > systems which they do not personally favor. > +=+ The 25 people are there because by some kind of democratic procedure they are chosen to be the right people for the task. The whole basis of democracy is to give power to the elected majority. If they are not doing the job well it is a matter of domestic concern within the Zone: we get the governments we deserve. +=+ > > Several years ago, we had a long thread on L40D. There was a decided > difference in approach between two groups, one of which took the view that > the primary benefit of L40D was to encourage SOs to regulate the game > differently as appropriate to the needs of their local constituency > +=+ primary intention was to enable +=+ > > , the other of which took the view that its primary purpose > was to constrain local regulators > +=+ This was indeed one man's aim - to appear to enable regulation of the game, but to restrict the powers in a way that would conform to his ideas of what the game should be. He failed, of course, because the will of the majority always finds the way eventually to overcome. As it should. +=+ > > Then somebody looked at who was posting which messages, and realized that > the folks with the latter attitude were almost all from North American, > while those with the former were almost all from elsewhere. > > Grattan's argument is entirely sound, insofar as his conclusion follows > from his premise. To some (Grattan among them), it therefore suggests that > the WBF should implement his conclusion (by eliminating the words of L40D > that make it at all restrictive). To me, however, it suggests that the > WBF should reverse the foolishness that constitutes his premise ("it is a > legitimate use..."). > > What we have now is a law that appears, on its face, to restrict the > authority of SOs to regulating only certain classes of methods (conventions > and light opening bids), coupled with interpretive loopholes that actually > give the SOs carte blanche to effectively regulate whatever methods they > choose to. The result is transparent hypocrisy, and Grattan and I agree > that something should be done to rid ourselves of it. Grattan, however, > would do so by eliminating the restrictions in the law so as to make the > existence of those loopholes unnecessary, while I would do so by > eliminating the loopholes so as to make the restrictive language of L40D > once again meaningful. > +=+ the language of 40D is not restrictive. The powers given are open-ended. "may regulate" has no limitation upon it and I doubt very much that a meaningful limitation is feasible. So long as the regulation is attached to the target subject any conditions may be imposed as to its use, as to the surrounding circumstances in which it may be used. What is more, to argue that because one authority uses its powers in a tyrannous way (if it does, and I have real doubts it is true) all the good guys should also be confined is selfish. The proper solution is not to penalize the majority in order to improve the behaviour of the minority. ~ 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 Sep 19 02:15:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8IGFPu19158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 02:15:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8IGFIt19154 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 02:15:19 +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 e8IGUJV83364 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:30:19 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000918120051.00ab2280@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, 18 Sep 2000 12:16:29 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Five-and-a-half card majors 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 03:12 AM 9/18/00, richard.hills wrote: >Reference: Bridge World, January 1972 page 25 > >In a matchpoint pairs event you hold as dealer 107xxx KQx Axx KJ. In >your system you require a five card major to open in 1st or 2nd seat. You >evaluate the weak spades as only a four card suit, and open 1D. Pard >responds 1H, you raise to 2H. This is passed around to RHO, who balances >with 2S. You double, and +300 is second top on the board. When RHO >notices you have five spades, the TD is called. > >[In real life the TD totally mangled his handling of the situation.] > >Question 1: Putting a spade in with the diamonds was deliberate, but was >it gross enough to count as a psyche? Matter of opinion. I'd say no; 10xxx/KQx/Axxx/KJ isn't "different enough" from 10xxxx/KQx/Axx/KJ to constitute a "gross distortion", but others could reasonably disagree. >Question 2: L40E1 states that regulations may not restrict style and >judgement, only method. Which of these two options is 5&1/2 card majors? If it is established by (either explicit or implicit) agreement, it is style. If, OTOH, partner assumes that a 1S opening shows a five-card suit of any quality, and that the given auction denies five spades, then it is judgment. >Question 3: Assuming that 5&1/2 card majors counts as style, should it be >pre-alerted? The authority to make that judgment should, and does, reside with the SO. If Richard is asking whether he should pre-alert, the answer is for him to ask his SO. If he is asking whether it would be wise for an SO to require a pre-alert, I'd say no, but that too is a matter of opinion with which others could reasonably disagree. 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 Sep 19 02:35:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8IGYtd19177 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 02:34:55 +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-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 e8IGYnt19173 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 02:34:50 +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 e8IGnoV84482 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:49:51 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000918121939.00ab0580@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, 18 Sep 2000 12:36:00 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Five-and-a-half card majors In-Reply-To: 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 03:22 AM 9/18/00, Mark wrote: >No. 107xx KQx Axx KJx would be a completely unremarkable 1D opening. Of >course this action now creates an understanding of a possible very weak >5M for a 1m opener - which is a method that may be regulated. Is it? On what grounds? It is not conventional by the definition in TFLB (it promises three or more diamonds) -- indeed, it is not even conventional by the more restrictive definition promulgated by the ACBL (which defines three-card major openings as conventional, in contradiction to TFLB, but not three-card minor openings). It is not "made with a hand of a King or more below average strength". These are the only conditions under which an SO has the authority to regulate methods granted by L40D. Of course, although it may not itself be regulated, it remains subject to full disclosure, and an SO may make whatever rules they wish regarding the procedure for that disclosure. That's not at all the same thing, but I suspect it may be what Mark meant. 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 Sep 19 03:56:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8IHu8J19270 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 03:56:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8IHu1t19266 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 03:56:02 +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 KAA01980; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 10:55:55 -0700 Message-Id: <200009181755.KAA01980@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Five-and-a-half card majors In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 18 Sep 2000 17:12:31 PDT." Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 10:55:55 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Hills wrote: > Reference: Bridge World, January 1972 page 25 > > In a matchpoint pairs event you hold as dealer 107xxx KQx Axx KJ. In > your system you require a five card major to open in 1st or 2nd seat. You > evaluate the weak spades as only a four card suit, and open 1D. Pard > responds 1H, you raise to 2H. This is passed around to RHO, who balances > with 2S. You double, and +300 is second top on the board. When RHO > notices you have five spades, the TD is called. > > [In real life the TD totally mangled his handling of the situation.] > > Question 1: Putting a spade in with the diamonds was deliberate, but was > it gross enough to count as a psyche? No. Almost no expert subscribes to the notion that a five-card suit is a five-card suit is a five-card suit, regardless of suit quality. IMHO, very few experts would look at AKQxx Axx xxx xx as being the same sort of hand as 65432 Jxx KQx AK, for instance, although lots of beginners and intermediates wouldn't be able to tell the difference---to them, they're both 5=3=3=2 hands with 13 HCP. Anyway, in line with this thinking, I wouldn't consider treating the spade suit as a 4-card suit to be a misdescription at all, let alone a "gross misstatement". (I'm not saying I'd open 1D on the BW hand. Although my spade suit is terrible, my diamonds are nothing to crow about either, and I think 1D is actually a bigger lie than the small lie you tell by opening 1S on that lousy suit. Now give me 76432 KQ AKJ 642, and I'd think a little more seriously about opening 1D. But I'd probably end up opening 1S anyway, with most partners.) (However, I *did* recently open 1D, in third seat, with something like Ax QJx AQx 8xxxx. I figured that there was a good chance LHO would play the hand, and I wanted a diamond lead. The biggest surprise was partner's failure to comment when I put my hand down as dummy.) > Question 2: L40E1 states that regulations may not restrict style and > judgement, only method. Which of these two options is 5&1/2 card majors? No, you're misstating it. The parenthesized part of L40E1 says "such ^^^^ a regulation must not restrict style and judgement, only method", where "such" refers to a regulation that both members of a partnership employ the same system. I don't think the parenthesized part of L40E1 can be expanded beyond that, since the rest of this Law deals with convention cards, not with regulations that determine what system one may play. (In fact, I'd argue that the last half of L40E1 has no business being in L40E1, and it's confusing to put it there. It would be more appropriate to put it in L40D.) Anyway, regarding the question of whether this is "style and judgment" or "method", I think the following, from the WBF's "Code of Practice for Appeals Committees" (September 1999) is the best way to judge: A player is permitted to make and use judgements about the abilities and tendencies of opponents and about the inclinations ('style') of his partner in matters where the partner's decisions are spontaneous rather than habitual or systemic. A player's habitual practices form part of his method and his partner's awareness of them is legitimate information; but such method is subject to any regulations governing partnership agreements and to the requisite disclosure. Habit is to be identified when an occurrence is so frequent that it may be anticipated. Not to disclose knowledge of partner's habits and practices is contrary to Law 75A and where this is the case it is a violation of Law 40 (and thus illegal) when the call is made. Thus, if the practice of treating 5-card majors as 4-baggers is "habitual" or "systemic" by the above definition, then it counts as a partnership "method" and can be regulated by L40E1. > Question 3: Assuming that 5&1/2 card majors counts as style, should it be > pre-alerted? I think the answer is in L40A: 40A. Right to Choose Call or Play A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading call - such as a psychic bid - or a call or play that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding. After reading the text from the CoP, I don't see any real difference between "method" and "partnership understanding". Therefore, a "style" that qualifies as a "method" should be pre-alerted if the relevant SO regulations say it should. But a "style" that doesn't qualify as a "method" does not require a pre-alert according to L40A. (BTW, this implies that there's no such thing as a "style" that requires a pre-alert, and that is also protected from "same-system" regulations by L40E1. The two are mutually exclusive, IMHO.) -- 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 Sep 19 05:15:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8IJFBU19334 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 05:15:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8IJF6t19330 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 05:15:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.101.87]) by mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20000918191536.MTYJ641613.mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 07:15:36 +1200 Message-ID: <00ca01c021a3$f97a46a0$576560cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <200009181755.KAA01980@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Five-and-a-half card majors Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 06:55:52 +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" : Anyway, regarding the question of whether this is "style and judgment" : or "method", I think the following, from the WBF's "Code of Practice : for Appeals Committees" (September 1999) is the best way to judge: : : A player is permitted to make and use judgements about the : abilities and tendencies of opponents and about the inclinations : ('style') of his partner in matters where the partner's decisions : are spontaneous rather than habitual or systemic. A player's : habitual practices form part of his method and his partner's : awareness of them is legitimate information; but such method is : subject to any regulations governing partnership agreements and : to the requisite disclosure. Habit is to be identified when an : occurrence is so frequent that it may be anticipated. Not to : disclose knowledge of partner's habits and practices is contrary : to Law 75A and where this is the case it is a violation of Law 40 : (and thus illegal) when the call is made. : : Thus, if the practice of treating 5-card majors as 4-baggers is : "habitual" or "systemic" by the above definition, then it counts as a : partnership "method" and can be regulated by L40E1. : I have a problem with this view and the regulation in the CoP. It is a universal truth that all players have there own judgement. It is stated in L40E1 that this judgement may not be restricted. IMO a fundamental issue as to whether a judgement by habitual use becomes part of a partnerships method is whether or not both members of the partnership use the same judgement. That is if I think that a five-bagger is a five-bagger but my partner insists on having Hxxxx as a minimum then this will never be part of our partnerships method but only of the individual players judgement which is unconditionally protected from regulation in L40E1. L75B does not say that habitual violations "will" create a partnership agreement but only that they "may" create a partnership agreement. 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 Tue Sep 19 05:15:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8IJFMT19340 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 05:15:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from trex.uia.net (trex.uia.net [207.67.175.26]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8IJFFt19336 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 05:15:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from uia.net (169.uia.palm.cyberg8t.com [207.67.173.169]) by trex.uia.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA21867; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:15:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <39C66B2E.7D52199F@uia.net> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:21:18 -0700 From: Irv Kostal X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Landau CC: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: [BLML] What does the fast pass over skip bid demonstrablysuggests? References: <00e601c01e83$47cf7060$71d736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <39C32F72.4ED60E55@eduhi.at> <4.3.2.7.1.20000918094244.00b48a80@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 As an ACBL player, I adopted the practice of simply showing LHO the stop card and returning it to the box. The "reminder" simply doesn't work very well. Most people seem to think they are supposed to wait until the stop card is removed, and I've heard a complaint that "He can make me sit there for 30 or 40 seconds!" I think I prefer the old days, where you were simply supposed to wait 10 seconds after any pre-empt. The stop card has introduced a further element into the equation. I know it's simple, and easy to understand, but people just don't. Do we blame the ACBL for failing to educate the players properly? Or the directors? I don't know. Irv Eric Landau wrote: > At 02:56 AM 9/17/00, Petrus wrote: > > >Skip bids tend to create UI situations regardless of the stop-card > >regulations in force. In Austria, the player making the skip bid is > >required to leave the stop-card on the table for about 10 seconds, and > >when he removes it LHO should call. This should take care of the > >problem, but although this regulation has been in force for more than 20 > >years (skip bidder had to say "GO" in the pre-bidding-box days), about > >half of the players don't understand the regulation and remove the > >stop-card immediately. > >When the TD is called, in three out of four cases there will be no > >agreement on whether there has been a hesitation (complaints about fast > >passes are extremely rare), and TDs tend to accept that there has been > >some noticeable break in tempo, even if only for a few seconds - > >triggering L16A. > >An UI situation restricts the calls available to "offender's" partner > >and thereby creates an advantage to the other side - so you may easily > >improve your legal situation by the skip bid in that RHO is often barred > >from selecting a call only half of his peers would have made. > >Which is why I find nothing unfair in returning the UI burden to the > >skip-bidder's side by a fast bidder's literal application of L73D1 > >"maintain steady tempo". > > I prefer the ACBL's approach to this issue. Their position is that when a > player makes a skip bid, his LHO should hesitate for about 10 seconds > before calling. The purpose of the stop card or verbal skip-bid warning is > simply to remind LHO of that obligation; the obligation remains regardless > of whether or how the warning was given. > > In practice, however, this does not make the correct use of the stop card > meaningless. When a player who has not been correctly warned to hesitate > fails to do so, the TD/AC will at least take into account the possibility > that he is ignorant of, or has momentarily forgotten, his obligation to > hesitate, so that his failure to hesitate carries no particular inference > that may constitute UI to his partner; they will find that there was > transmission of UI (a pre-requisite to finding use of UI, which is the > actual infraction in question) only if that is rather blatantly suggested > by the facts. Conversely, when a player who has been properly warned to > hesitate fails to do so, the finding that his failure consituted UI to his > partner is virtually automatic. > > At least that's the philosophy. Others have pointed out that this almost > always breaks down in practice when the player who fails to hesitate > properly passes. But that's a problem of implementation that has nothing > to do with the soundness of the professed approach. > > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 19 05:16:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8IJGkl19358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 05:16:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8IJGet19354 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 05:16:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.24]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:16:53 -0700 Message-ID: <007001c021a4$9a5ccca0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] A question on Maastricht Appeal#2 Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:13:38 -0700 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 Adam Wildavsky quoted the WBF Alert policy, which includes: > 41.2 Policy > > The following classes of calls should be alerted: > > a) Conventional bids should be alerted, non-conventional bids should not. (A > Convention is a call that serves by partnership agreement to convey a meaning > not necessarily related to the denomination named.) Someone ought to update this 1987/1990 definition of convention, which was changed in the 1997 Laws, as BLMLers know. Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, 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 Tue Sep 19 05:28:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8IJSEp19371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 05:28:14 +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-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 e8IJS8t19367 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 05:28:08 +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 e8IJS3O85175 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 15:28:03 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000918144740.00b3d290@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, 18 Sep 2000 15:29:05 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more In-Reply-To: <000201c02187$9a483960$067593c3@pacific> References: <3.0.1.32.20000914235644.01402c90@pop.mindspring.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000918082315.00ab42f0@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:44 AM 9/18/00, Grattan wrote: >+=+ The 25 people are there because by some >kind of democratic procedure they are chosen to >be the right people for the task. The whole basis >of democracy is to give power to the elected >majority. If they are not doing the job well it is >a matter of domestic concern within the Zone: >we get the governments we deserve. +=+ BLML might not be the appropriate place to discuss political philosophy, but I beg to differ with Grattan. As Hitler and Stalin so successfully demonstrated, the outward trappings of democratic process -- such as the right to vote in elections -- do not make a government democratic. I find it somewhat offensive to dismiss the millions of oppressed German and Soviet citizens who voted in those elections as having gotten the governments they deserved. And ACBL members do not even get to vote for the 25 people -- they get to vote for the people who vote for the people who vote for them. And at each stage, each election determines only a small number of the seats on their respective (unit or district) boards of directors. The result is that ACBL Directors, like Hitler or Stalin, once elected to their positions of authority, have the practical means to hold onto those positions until they die or relinquish them voluntarily. If 90% of the membership of the ACBL wanted to dismiss the entire Board of Directors, but did not include anyone currently holding a seat in the hierarchy of unit/district/national BoDs, and immediately undertook to vote only for candidates at the local level (which is all they get to vote on) who would favor this particular goal, it would take many, many years before they could, in theory, succeed accomplishing it. And in reality they could never succeed, because the national BoD is so powerful as to have the means at its disposal to readily coopt (through a combination of incentives (bribes) and disincentives (threats)) anyone who gained a sufficiently high position within the power structure to become part of it, notwithstanding that they may have started on their way to those positions with the express purpose of opposing the power structure of which they now find themselves a part. If the extent to which a system of governance is in fact democratic is determined by the ability of ordinary voters (non-office-holders) to collectively influence government policy, then the ACBL isn't democratic at all. Those who would tell us in the ACBL that if we don't like the way our organization is run all we need to is go out and change it might with equal justification say the same thing about the weather. 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 Sep 19 06:06:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8IK5d419418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 06:05:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hermes.isi.com (hermes.isi.com [192.73.222.27]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8IK5Wt19414 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 06:05:32 +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 NAA03926 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 13:07:05 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard Willey" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: RE: [BLML] BSC - more Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 16:08:24 -0400 Message-ID: <002801c021ac$3367b520$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: <4.3.2.7.1.20000918144740.00b3d290@127.0.0.1> 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 > BLML might not be the appropriate place to discuss political > philosophy, > but I beg to differ with Grattan. As Hitler and Stalin so > successfully > demonstrated, the outward trappings of democratic process -- > such as the > right to vote in elections -- do not make a government > democratic. I find > it somewhat offensive to dismiss the millions of oppressed German > and Soviet citizens who voted in those elections as having gotten > the governments they deserved. Another excellent post by Eric. I would like to point out one point that he did not mention explicitly. There is one effective way for members to express their displeasure with such an organization. It is always possible to vote with your feet and either not join the organization or refuse to renew ones membership. I would argue that examining the membership numbers provides a very effective indication of the level of satisfaction with the organization heirarchy. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOcZ2N7FdMFbo8dHHEQLw/gCgi3iTL9FgJ5d+nkrKbWJLN2l14T4An3N6 hUeImcpRwPr3CLNmtFG+iWXO =zCaR -----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 Sep 19 06:33:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8IKWe819438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 06:32:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8IKWXt19434 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 06:32:34 +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 e8IKWUm90461 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 16:32:30 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000918153013.00b3c100@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, 18 Sep 2000 16:33:44 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more In-Reply-To: <000201c02187$9a483960$067593c3@pacific> References: <3.0.1.32.20000914235644.01402c90@pop.mindspring.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000918082315.00ab42f0@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:44 AM 9/18/00, Grattan wrote: >+=+ the language of 40D is not restrictive. The powers >given are open-ended. "may regulate" has no limitation >upon it and I doubt very much that a meaningful limitation >is feasible. So long as the regulation is attached to the >target subject any conditions may be imposed as to its >use, as to the surrounding circumstances in which it >may be used. If the authority vested in SOs by L40D to regulate conventions is open-ended and unlimited, then, just as SOs have the undeniable authority to prohibit the use of any convention they may choose to, they have the equivalent authority, vested by the same law, to require the use of any convention they may choose to. Is this indeed the position of the WBF? 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 Sep 19 06:55:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8IKtmn19464 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 06:55:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8IKtgt19460 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 06:55:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivetdg.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.117.176]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA13779 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 16:55:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000918165531.013c4414@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 16:55:31 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more 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 05:50 PM 9/17/2000 PDT, Todd wrote: > I'll bite. From where does the power to regulate conventions based on >their systemic responses, which are not part of the legal definition of a >convention, come? > Too easy. It comes from the collective hallucination of AC members who feel unconstrained by the actual written Laws. 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 Sep 19 07:35:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8ILZ7d19491 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 07:35:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx1.hcvlny.cv.net (mx1.hcvlny.cv.net [167.206.112.76]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8ILZ1t19487 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 07:35:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from s1.optonline.net (s1.optonline.net [167.206.112.6]) by mx1.hcvlny.cv.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA17751 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 17:34:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from downstairs (d1-253.hntnny.optonline.net [24.188.1.253]) by s1.optonline.net (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e8ILYul23722 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 17:34:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <002301c021b8$6b45a7c0$fd01bc18@downstairs> From: "Art Brodsky" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 17:35:44 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-user-defined" 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 Hi, I've been a regular lurker for years. My cat, Ralph and dog, Norton both show great respect for the laws. This hand came up in the Long Island NAOP Flight B Unit Final: S 96 Dlr E H A63 Vl EW D 9765 C QT84 S KT2 S 43 H T984 H KJ72 D Q32 D A8 C 652 C AKJ73 S AQJ875 H Q5 D KJT4 C 9 N E S W _ 1C* 2H% P& 2S# 3C 3S AP Result: 3S-1: NS -50 *: Artificial, forcing, 16+ hcp %: Spades or minors (as would 1H, only more so) &: < 8 hcp #: Semi-forced West's pass was preceded by 1 minute of tortured questioning. When play concluded, NS called the director who rolled the auction back to 2S and +110 for NS. EW appealed. The committee of three (of which I was the only dissenter) overturned the director's ruling, claiming that pass was not a LA with the east hand. The other AC members are among LI's best and regularly play forcing club systems. I do not. Am I missing something? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 19 08:03:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8IM3RT19521 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 08:03:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8IM3Lt19517 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 08:03:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivet05.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.116.5]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA27404 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 18:03:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000918180303.01410aa8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 18:03:03 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal In-Reply-To: <002301c021b8$6b45a7c0$fd01bc18@downstairs> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Welcome into the light, Art! No, I think you have it right (along with the TD). The impulse by E to say something rather than to stand for being robbed is understandable, but the fact is that he is shy of his 3C by at least one club and maybe by some points as well, especially considering the risk that LHO might just have the minor 2-suiter. Certainly some would hold their noses and make the far-from-perfect 3C call, but passing with a directionless minimum is certainly not an unreasonable choice, and I think some significant minority would choose it. Partner still has a bid, after all. Mike Dennis At 05:35 PM 9/18/2000 -0400, Art wrote: >Hi, I've been a regular lurker for years. My cat, Ralph and dog, Norton >both show great respect for the laws. >This hand came up in the Long Island NAOP Flight B Unit Final: > > > S 96 >Dlr E H A63 >Vl EW D 9765 > C QT84 > >S KT2 S 43 >H T984 H KJ72 >D Q32 D A8 >C 652 C AKJ73 > > S AQJ875 > H Q5 > D KJT4 > C 9 > > >N E S W >_ 1C* 2H% P& >2S# 3C 3S AP > >Result: 3S-1: NS -50 > >*: Artificial, forcing, 16+ hcp >%: Spades or minors (as would 1H, only more so) >&: < 8 hcp >#: Semi-forced > >West's pass was preceded by 1 minute of tortured questioning. When play >concluded, NS called the director who rolled the auction back to 2S and +110 >for NS. EW appealed. The committee of three (of which I was the only >dissenter) overturned the director's ruling, claiming that pass was not a LA >with the east hand. The other AC members are among LI's best and regularly >play forcing club systems. I do not. Am I missing something? > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Sep 19 08:25:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8IMPZt19555 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 08:25:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8IMPTt19550 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 08:25:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.104.120]) by mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20000918223849.OPSX357059.mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 10:38:49 +1200 Message-ID: <015001c021be$91e6d1a0$576560cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <002401c02146$7a476320$715608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 09:44:42 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grattan Endicott" : +=+ My belief is that we should remove two words : from the laws: 'agreement' and 'convention', and : replace them with 'partnership uderstanding'. It : would mean a rephrasing or reworking of the : insufficient bid law, but there are independent : arguments for this. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ : If the intention of this change is to be able to regulate all understandings then the law book or those that are delegated to regulate might as well tell us how to bid the hands and we will reduce the game to one of playing the cards - unless that becomes too deceptive. The regulations are complicated as it is. For example "The guide to completing a WBF Convention Card runs to 70-80 pages" and then at times the language is vague and ambiguous. On top of this there are alert regulations, Conditions of Contest, Code of Practice etc etc. Many of which are ambiguous and ill-defined. And as a consequence players get a surprise when they think they are following the regulations only to be told they are not by the AC as in the case that started this thread. It is becoming increasingly difficult for players to comply with the regulations - especially when forming new partnerships. Almost every time I play I see well meaning players violating alert and disclosure regulations. I have seen qualifying places in a national championship determined not at the table but by interpretations by the AC in direct contrast to the written regulations. I wonder if such regulations are for the benefit of the players and the game or for the benefit of the regulators. 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 Sep 19 08:25:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8IMPU619552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 08:25:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8IMPPt19545 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 08:25:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.104.120]) by mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20000918223843.OPSF357059.mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 10:38:43 +1200 Message-ID: <014f01c021be$8f509660$576560cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <3.0.1.32.20000914235644.01402c90@pop.mindspring.com><4.3.2.7.1.20000918082315.00ab42f0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20000918153013.00b3c100@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 09:26:11 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Eric Landau" > > If the authority vested in SOs by L40D to regulate conventions is > open-ended and unlimited, then, just as SOs have the undeniable authority > to prohibit the use of any convention they may choose to, they have the > equivalent authority, vested by the same law, to require the use of any > convention they may choose to. > > Is this indeed the position of the WBF? The anomilies created by an open ended interpretation of L40D are themselves open ended. All of the following would be valid regulations: If your 1nt opening may have more than 10hcp then you cannot play any conventions; If you bypass a four-card major you may not play conventions; If you open 5-card majors you can not play conventions; If you opening may include the h8 then you may not play conventions etc etc I am a simple sole - I believe that if the law contains a restriction then that means that there is a restriction not an endless number of ways of getting around the apparent restriction. 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 Tue Sep 19 09:04:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8IN3cI19587 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 09:03:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8IN3Wt19583 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 09:03:33 +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 TAA03594 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 19:03:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA05513 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 19:03:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 19:03:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200009182303.TAA05513@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thanks to several responses, I believe I may be seeing what happened. Let me try to explain what I understand, and then those who know can tell me where I'm wrong. First the system regulations (with my substituted suit symbols): > From: "Wayne Burrows" (Thanks, Wayne.) > MULTI 2D (... weak 2M; or ... ) ... > Note: If you have some special agreements, such as: "might pass a 2H > response randomly with a weak 2S" or "pass over an opponent's DBL of > D means nothing," such variations are sufficiently important to merit > "QUOTES" around the NAME. Your opponents will want to know about this sort > of thing in advance. So the regulation says you can play it if you put quotes around the word "MULTI". (I'd have thought there would have to be more details inside the card, but the regulation doesn't seem to say so.) So I assume the pair in question failed to put the quotation marks on their CC. This is an infraction. > From: "Grattan Endicott" > 1. Multi 2D is inherently a Brown Sticker convention, > because there is not a specified suit common to > and present in all its weak forms. > 2. As a concession it is excepted from BS on condition > that it is played 'as described in the WBF Conventions > Booklet'. > 3. The description in the CB includes material as > to responses. These specify that 2H/S responses > are 'pass or correct'. (Unless the quotation marks are provided, in which case alternate possibilities are allowed.) > 4. There is mention of random passes of responses > in an advisory note. This describes the method as a > 'variation' and prescribes that the convention must > be described differently on the CC from the > standard convention. Ergo the TAC ruling deems > it not the convention as described etc. OK, fair enough. I would think this would bring us to: > From: Michael Farebrother > ...It's a CPU, you can't play it unless it's on your CC, it's > too late to put it on your CC, so sorry. Note that this probably stops > them from using the "random passes" in the KO stage as well, where BSCs > are allowed. And further, the AC could have gone back and adjusted the scores where the "random passes" were used or even all the scores where the pair in question opened with 2D. They were generous in not doing so. Evidently the AC decided this was too harsh for the seemingly trivial omission of a couple of quotation marks, so they twisted themselves into a knot to bring the Brown Sticker rules into the picture. The effect was to allow "random passes" to be played in the KO portions but not in the rest of the RR. That seems to me quite a reasonable result -- although a bit generous -- but it does seem rather hard to justify in terms of the written rules. Grattan again: > 5. So in the TAC view it loses the protection of > the 'exception' and resumes its inherent BS form. Could they not simply have ruled "play what is on your card through the RR, and give your opponents a corrected card when you come to the KO?" (They could add a statement that normally corrections to the filed convention card would not be allowed, but in this case of a trivial error, and given the length of the KO matches, they were allowing a correction to be made.) As far as I can tell, this would have had the same effect and not created any confusion. Why bring up Brown Stickers? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 19 09:10:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8INA0Y19600 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 09:10:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.0.213]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8IN9st19596 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 09:09:55 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 04EBA8F7C; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 19:09:50 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <002301c021b8$6b45a7c0$fd01bc18@downstairs> References: <002301c021b8$6b45a7c0$fd01bc18@downstairs> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 19:09:41 -0400 To: Art Brodsky From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Surely pass is a LA. I'd need to know more about the EW system to guess what might have happened next. 2S passed out must be at least "at all probable." Whether it's "likely" depends on the EW agreements and inclinations. What was West's tortured questioning about? Did he have any alternatives other than Pass? What would a double have shown? The answers to these questions would help determine whether 3C was "demonstrably suggested" by the UI. My guess is that it was, and that the hesitation tended to suggest the type of hand actually held, as they so often do. I suggest you furnish your committees with a copy of Edgar Kaplan's editorial on the ACBL Law Commission's interpretation of Law 16A. You can find a copy at http://www.bridgeworld.com/sampler/samed.html The relevant question to ask comes straight from Edgar: "Would it have been obviously foolish to pass, an egregious error, absurd? No, it wouldn't--pass would be right quite often." Adam Wildavsky -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 19 09:15:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8INFBR19617 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 09:15:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8INF5t19613 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 09:15:06 +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 QAA08376; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 16:14:57 -0700 Message-Id: <200009182314.QAA08376@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 18 Sep 2000 17:35:44 PDT." <002301c021b8$6b45a7c0$fd01bc18@downstairs> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 16:14:56 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Art Brodsky wrote: > Hi, I've been a regular lurker for years. My cat, Ralph and dog, Norton > both show great respect for the laws. > > This hand came up in the Long Island NAOP Flight B Unit Final: > > > S 96 > Dlr E H A63 > Vl EW D 9765 > C QT84 > > S KT2 S 43 > H T984 H KJ72 > D Q32 D A8 > C 652 C AKJ73 > > S AQJ875 > H Q5 > D KJT4 > C 9 > > > N E S W > _ 1C* 2H% P& > 2S# 3C 3S AP > > Result: 3S-1: NS -50 > > *: Artificial, forcing, 16+ hcp > %: Spades or minors (as would 1H, only more so) > &: < 8 hcp > #: Semi-forced > > West's pass was preceded by 1 minute of tortured questioning. When play > concluded, NS called the director who rolled the auction back to 2S and +110 > for NS. EW appealed. The committee of three (of which I was the only > dissenter) overturned the director's ruling, claiming that pass was not a LA > with the east hand. The other AC members are among LI's best and regularly > play forcing club systems. I do not. Am I missing something? I have played forcing club systems, and I can't fathom why the committee thought passing wasn't an LA. East has what he already said he had, 16+ HCP, not much more than a minimum (this is a good 16-count, but not *that* good). Plus, the hand is relatively balanced. Plus, N-S are playing a system that cleverly gives West an extra chance to take action with something more than a Yarborough. (I'm all in favor of players playing stupid defenses to strong clubs, especially when I'm the one playing the strong club.) I'd like to hear the committee's reasoning for why they didn't think passing was logical---did they offer any? On the other hand, it isn't clear to me that the questioning suggests taking action over passing. First of all, I'd have to know just what is meant by "1 minute of tortured questioning"... what questions did West ask, and was the torture being caused by North not providing a clear explanation? When N-S use a convention like this, West has a right to ask what's going on (since they're not in England), and there's a line between asking questions to find out what system the opponents are playing, and asking questions that indicate to partner that you're thinking of alternative actions, or you have some values, or you have something in one of the suits they say they have, etc.... I'd need more information about what actually transpired at the table in order to determine whether the UI suggested a non-pass---an element that must be present in order for the Director to roll back 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 Sep 19 09:47:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8INkqE19649 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 09:46:52 +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 e8INkjt19645 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 09:46:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA09103; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 16:46:38 -0700 Message-Id: <200009182346.QAA09103@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 18 Sep 2000 16:14:56 PDT." <200009182314.QAA08376@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 16:46:39 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I wrote: > Art Brodsky wrote: > > > Hi, I've been a regular lurker for years. My cat, Ralph and dog, Norton > > both show great respect for the laws. > > > > This hand came up in the Long Island NAOP Flight B Unit Final: > > > > > > S 96 > > Dlr E H A63 > > Vl EW D 9765 > > C QT84 > > > > S KT2 S 43 > > H T984 H KJ72 > > D Q32 D A8 > > C 652 C AKJ73 > > > > S AQJ875 > > H Q5 > > D KJT4 > > C 9 > > > > > > N E S W > > _ 1C* 2H% P& > > 2S# 3C 3S AP > > > > Result: 3S-1: NS -50 > > > > *: Artificial, forcing, 16+ hcp > > %: Spades or minors (as would 1H, only more so) > > &: < 8 hcp > > #: Semi-forced > > > > West's pass was preceded by 1 minute of tortured questioning. > > When play concluded, NS called the director who rolled the auction > > back to 2S and +110 for NS. EW appealed. The committee of three > > (of which I was the only dissenter) overturned the director's > > ruling, claiming that pass was not a LA with the east hand. The > > other AC members are among LI's best and regularly play forcing > > club systems. I do not. Am I missing something? > > I have played forcing club systems, and I can't fathom why the > committee thought passing wasn't an LA. East has what he already said > he had, 16+ HCP, not much more than a minimum (this is a good > 16-count, but not *that* good). Plus, the hand is relatively > balanced. Plus, N-S are playing a system that cleverly gives West an > extra chance to take action with something more than a Yarborough. > (I'm all in favor of players playing stupid defenses to strong clubs, > especially when I'm the one playing the strong club.) I'd like to > hear the committee's reasoning for why they didn't think passing was > logical---did they offer any? One other thing I forgot to consider: It's not enough to conclude that passing is a LA for East. Even if we judge that East broke the law by bidding 3C, we can't roll the contract back to 2S unless we determine that, if East had passed, West might also have passed. If this possibility does not fit into the "likely" or "at all probable" category specified by Law 12C1, then we can't assign a score based on the score for 2S making. Michael and I both argued that passing is a LA for East because West will get another chance to bid. But this this argument doesn't make sense if West, having another chance to bid, is then going to pass with a hand in the upper range for his previous pass. This really depends on E-W's system. We'd need to find out what E-W's agreements are (if any) in this situation: what's the most East can have to pass 2S, and what does West have to have before he's required to reopen. -- 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 Sep 19 10:18:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8J0Htk19695 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 10:17:56 +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-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 e8J0Hft19672 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 10:17:41 +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 13bB6L-0002yn-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 01:17:36 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 03:12:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal #3 References: <000d01c01ba5$a3be85e0$5c5408c3@dodona> <008601c01c90$8ff2db60$375408c3@dodona> <19Ms+ABSajv5EwRj@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <39BF4AC7.5F103C@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <39BF4AC7.5F103C@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >> We are publishing appeals. I had assumed that there would be a good >> reason to hide part of the reasoning, not that the AC could not be >> bothered. I have been defending this AC and its scribe and I shall be >> very disappointed if the reason is [as some have alleged] that the AC >> could not be bothered to quantify. >> > >Why would there be a good reason to hide anything ? > >The truth is that the AC did not quantify probabilities, but >preferred to express its correction into IMPs. >There seems to me no obligation for any AC to quantify. >I don't know why any individual (apart from me) agreed to >the correction value, but I know that they did. > >Be dissapointed if you want. But tell me if you would have >insisted on quantification if all that is said is "4 IMPs" >and everyone (including you, who has quantified) agrees. I would not have insisted, no. But I would have strongly suggested it for the sake of people who were going to look at the decision. -- 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 Sep 19 10:18:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8J0HnT19687 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 10:17:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8J0Hdt19671 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 10:17:40 +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 13bB6L-0002ym-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 01:17:33 +0100 Message-ID: <7NpvipA7ODw5Ewqd@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 03:11:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastrict Appeal #3 References: <200009131459.KAA16795@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200009131459.KAA16795@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 >> But in this case, it simply is not true. > >My specific proposal was: > (Scribe's note added after the hearing: the committee's decision is > mathematically equivalent to 82% of 6D= and 18% of 6D-1.) > >What is not true about that? (Apart from perhaps substituting 9/11 >and 2/11 for the percentages.) It is misleading. Anyone who read that might think that is what the Committee decided. You could also write that a 12-14 1NT opening is called weak. Quite true, not what the committee decided, so misleading if added to such a Committee report. >> The fact is that we all agreed on 4 IMPs. Whyever >> should there be more in the write-up than that ? > >If that isn't obvious from this whole thread (and even more so from the >comments on RGB), I cannot hope to explain it to you. Oh well, that ends 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 Tue Sep 19 10:18:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8J0I4f19698 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 10:18:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8J0Hlt19688 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 10:17:48 +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 13bB6V-0002yn-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 01:17:44 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 01:03:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Again claims References: <00c801c00e92$44e13d80$67da36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <39AA998D.9B55E03C@elnet.msk.ru> In-Reply-To: <39AA998D.9B55E03C@elnet.msk.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk cc Vitold Vitold wrote: >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. Sorry for the delay: ten days in Brighton: a burglary losing vital things like credit cards in my three days at home: then sixteen days in Maastricht: then home for four days with lots of problems from the burglary: then five days in the Isle of Man! However, I am now home for the forseeable future and can catch up on everything. >"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? Let us say your opponent makes a claim. After you have considered it, you decide that it is correct, so you "assent", that is you say something like "I agree with your claim". Normally, that would end the matter: the board would be scored as though the claim was correct. However, L69 considers two more situations. Suppose you [or your partner] change your mind and decide you do not agree with the claim. Now the time limits matter. If you say that you have changed your mind "before your side makes a call on a subsequent board, or before the round ends" then L69A applies: it says there is no Acquiescence, and the Director treats it just the same as if you had contested the claim immediately. If you say that you have changed your mind after that time [and within the Correction Period, after which nothing can be changed anyway] then Acquiescence did exist, but you have now withdrawn it. However, the director does *not* treat this the same as a normal Contested Claim: by L69B he gives the benefit of any doubt to claimer: if there is one reasonable line that gives claimer what he claimed, the he gets it. So, depending on the time, either there was no Acquiescence, which is a normal contested Claim, or it was withdrawn, which shifts the benefit of doubt. >"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? L71B apples to the simple case where decalrer says he concedes one off in [say] 4H but has already made ten tricks. It may or may not be better in a different place [I think it is fine where it is] and it just makes an obvious situation very clear. It also applies when the defence try to concede a contract they have beaten. Treat thsi Law as a simple clarification. -- 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 Sep 19 10:18:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8J0HxP19696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 10:18:00 +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-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 e8J0Hht19677 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 10:17:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13bB6L-0002yo-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 01:17:38 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 03:15:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal #3 References: <000d01c01ba5$a3be85e0$5c5408c3@dodona> <008601c01c90$8ff2db60$375408c3@dodona> <19Ms+ABSajv5EwRj@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000701c01ddc$d52ed240$665608c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <000701c01ddc$d52ed240$665608c3@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 Endicottnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn >" Write the vision and make it plain upon the tables" > - Habakkuk >uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: David Stevenson >To: >Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 2:58 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal #3 > > >> We are publishing appeals. I had assumed that there would be a good >> reason to hide part of the reasoning, not that the AC could not be >> bothered. I have been defending this AC and its scribe and I shall be >> very disappointed if the reason is [as some have alleged] that the AC >> could not be bothered to quantify. >> >+=+ There is no requirement laid upon the AC, >neither in the CoP nor in the WBF's TAC policies, >to quantify percentages. The CoP says 'to form >a view as to what is an equitable outcome in the >score, and to implement that outcome'. The >WBF policy guideline as enunciated in M'cht had >nothing in it about stating, nor for that matter >calculating, percentages. The main thrust was >to establish, when appropriate, an equitable >score to be awarded to both sides and to consider >separately the question of a penalty for any offence. > You are making the mistake of thinking >that the production of weighted scores via the >percentages route with which we are familiar, >and which has been encouraged by - amongst >others - you, Herman and myself, is a procedure >laid down in some regulatory or policy document >as 'the way to do it'. This is not so. On the >contrary, virtually the last act of the Lausanne >Group was to confirm that no one method of >applying 12C3 is set above another. ACs et al >are free to settle equity by any method they >choose when having recourse to 12C3. The >AC in the case made no mistake; it used its >powers within the policy laid down; the >argument you make is not about error but >about what may be desirable. Perhaps then you could re-read the paragraph I wrote, quoted above, to which you are replying. -- 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 Sep 19 10:18:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8J0I1c19697 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 10:18:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8J0Hlt19686 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 10:17:48 +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 13bB6U-0002ym-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 01:17:43 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 01:02:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Congratulations References: <00c801c00e92$44e13d80$67da36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <39AA998D.9B55E03C@elnet.msk.ru> <39BB2B3B.50AAE32B@elnet.msk.ru> In-Reply-To: <39BB2B3B.50AAE32B@elnet.msk.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Vitold wrote: >Hi all:) >My (and ours) congratulations to D.Burn and his teammates for their >outstanding achievement Yes, well done indeed. -- 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 Sep 19 11:07:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8J16cS19763 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 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 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 e8J16Wt19759 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 11:06:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ives93.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.113.35]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA25619 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 21:06:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000918210620.01413318@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 21:06:20 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal In-Reply-To: <200009182346.QAA09103@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 04:46 PM 9/18/2000 PDT, Adam wrote: >Michael and I both argued that passing is a LA for East because West >will get another chance to bid. But this this argument doesn't make >sense if West, having another chance to bid, is then going to pass >with a hand in the upper range for his previous pass. This really >depends on E-W's system. We'd need to find out what E-W's agreements >are (if any) in this situation: what's the most East can have to pass >2S, and what does West have to have before he's required to reopen. I only intended to answer the narrow question of whether Pass is an LA. For that purpose, the question of whether West might reopen is to be evaluated only from East's standpoint, absent the UI, at the point where he faced the decision, and without respect to West's actual hand. And certainly he might hope for a reopening here, without regard to the specifics of their methods. The broader questions of whether East's bid was an infraction (i.e., was the nature of West's questioning sufficient to demonstrably suggest bidding) or what might have happened in the sequel to a Pass by East require more factual data than we have. Mike -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 19 11:54:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8J1sHF19804 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 11:54:17 +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 e8J1s6t19795 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 11:54:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.39] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13bCbi-000M4i-00; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 02:54:03 +0100 Message-ID: <006501c021dc$9f2815e0$275908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <3.0.1.32.20000914235644.01402c90@pop.mindspring.com><4.3.2.7.1.20000918082315.00ab42f0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20000918144740.00b3d290@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 02:43:44 +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 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 8:29 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more > At 11:44 AM 9/18/00, Grattan wrote: > > >+=+ The 25 people are there because by some > >kind of democratic procedure they are chosen to > >be the right people for the task. The whole basis > >of democracy is to give power to the elected > >majority. If they are not doing the job well it is > >a matter of domestic concern within the Zone: > >we get the governments we deserve. +=+ > > BLML might not be the appropriate place to discuss political philosophy, > but I beg to differ with Grattan. > ---------------------------- \x/ ---------------------- > If the extent to which a system of governance is in fact democratic is > determined by the ability of ordinary voters (non-office-holders) to > collectively influence government policy, then the ACBL isn't democratic at > all. Those who would tell us in the ACBL that if we don't like the way our > organization is run all we need to is go out and change it might with equal > justification say the same thing about the weather. > +=+ I have read some such statements before and, of course, I am in no position - and have no right - to enter a debate upon the internal workings of another NBO. Suffice to say that I assume that in that great democracy such an organisation must surely have a democratic basis - it is difficult to believe that a rightly proud democratic people would accept it any other way. The obvious assumption is that the vocal dissent comes from the minority - 'twas ever thus - and that the mass is supportive of what is, and as ever silent. In the most fumbling of orders the will of the majority eventually breaks through. Be that as it may, the problem is one for the internal affairs of the NBO and to be addressed by its members. It is not acceptable to use the international laws of the game for the purpose, nor to expect that the will of the worldwide majority should be set aside for the interest of any single NBO or any single Zone. This is the principle I enunciate and which I think is a legitimate subject for comment on blml; I do not pretend to know what currently the will of the world majority may be. It may yet be to your liking! ~ 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 Sep 19 11:54:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8J1sIe19805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 11:54:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8J1s8t19796 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 11:54:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.39] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13bCbk-000M4i-00; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 02:54:04 +0100 Message-ID: <006601c021dc$a01ab340$275908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <3.0.1.32.20000914235644.01402c90@pop.mindspring.com><4.3.2.7.1.20000918082315.00ab42f0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20000918153013.00b3c100@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 02:53:34 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 9:33 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more > At 11:44 AM 9/18/00, Grattan wrote: > > >+=+ the language of 40D is not restrictive. The powers > >given are open-ended. "may regulate" has no limitation > >upon it and I doubt very much that a meaningful limitation > >is feasible. So long as the regulation is attached to the > >target subject any conditions may be imposed as to its > >use, as to the surrounding circumstances in which it > >may be used. > > If the authority vested in SOs by L40D to regulate conventions is > open-ended and unlimited, then, just as SOs have the undeniable authority > to prohibit the use of any convention they may choose to, they have the > equivalent authority, vested by the same law, to require the use of any > convention they may choose to. > > Is this indeed the position of the WBF? > +=+ The position is that the regulation of the use of conventions is in the hands of the regulating authority for each tournament. The WBF does not lay down any requirement as to how these powers shall be used, and has agreed* only that the subjects of regulation may be allowed, upon such conditions as may be determined by the regulator, or banned; there has been no occasion, in my experience, on which the WBF has been asked to judge whether use may be required. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [*correspondence from EK - "if the sponsoring organisation requires that a player using a certain convention shall wear a clown's conical hat it has the right to do so" (sic - well, he may only have said 'conical hat') ] -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 19 11:54:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8J1sAs19798 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 11:54:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8J1s2t19789 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 11:54:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.39] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13bCbe-000M4i-00; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 02:53:59 +0100 Message-ID: <006301c021dc$9cb36c60$275908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <000d01c01ba5$a3be85e0$5c5408c3@dodona><008601c01c90$8ff2db60$375408c3@dodona><19Ms+ABSajv5EwRj@blakjak.demon.co.uk><000701c01ddc$d52ed240$665608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal #3 Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 02:26:57 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 3:15 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal #3 > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > >Grattan Endicott >nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn > >" Write the vision and make it plain upon the tables" > > - Habakkuk > >uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: David Stevenson > >To: > >Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 2:58 PM > >Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal #3 > > -------------------------- \x/ ------------------ > >ACs et al > >are free to settle equity by any method they > >choose when having recourse to 12C3. The > >AC in the case made no mistake; it used its > >powers within the policy laid down; the > >argument you make is not about error but > >about what may be desirable. > > Perhaps then you could re-read the paragraph I wrote, quoted above, to > which you are replying. > +=+ I do not understand your point. Mine is that the AC did quantify, in imps, and was acting within its remit in doing so. ~ 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 Sep 19 12:25:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8J2Pjm19845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 12:25:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8J2Pct19841 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 12:25:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.1] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13bD6F-000Pfe-00; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 03:25:35 +0100 Message-ID: <009e01c021e1$071d68e0$275908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" References: <3.0.1.32.20000918210620.01413318@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 03:21:49 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 2:06 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal --------------- \x/ --------------- > > The broader questions of whether East's bid was an infraction (i.e., was > the nature of West's questioning sufficient to demonstrably suggest > bidding) or what might have happened in the sequel to a Pass by East > require more factual data than we have. > +=+ My opinion is that in the possession of UI East does not have his 3C bid - I do not even think 3C is an LA to 'Pass', although without the UI he could do what he likes. But if East passes smoothly, West should take action - double maybe. ~ 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 Sep 19 12:42:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8J2fxT19866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 12:42:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8J2frt19860 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 12:41:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13bDLu-000JRm-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 02:41:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 03:24:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A question on Maastricht Appeal#2 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: Something about M'cht #2. OK, what have I done wrong? We have had millions of posts on #3. #18 and #19 are getting an airing on RGB. #20 has been considered. #16 is getting its share of posts. Why has no-one complained about one of the appeals where I was the scribe? This is discrimination! -- 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 Sep 19 14:13:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8J4DFC19935 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 14:13:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8J4D8t19931 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 14:13:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.6.88.187] (helo=D457300) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13bEmB-0002Ee-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 05:12:59 +0100 Message-ID: <00c101c021ef$c921a6a0$bb58063e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: <00c801c00e92$44e13d80$67da36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <39AA998D.9B55E03C@elnet.msk.ru> <39BB2B3B.50AAE32B@elnet.msk.ru> Subject: Re: [BLML] Congratulations Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 05:12:09 +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: > Vitold wrote: > >Hi all:) > >My (and ours) congratulations to D.Burn and his teammates for their > >outstanding achievement > > Yes, well done indeed. Well, like Moses, we came fourth. I make no observation on where we would have finished if my rules on claims had been implemented before the tournament (or at any rate our match against Belgium) began. But then, you can scarcely expect me to. Thanks Vitold, thanks David, goodnight children everywhere. 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 Sep 19 17:21:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8J7KqB20032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 17:20:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8J7Kmt20028 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 17:20:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id na327613 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 17:20:37 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-010-p-223-158.tmns.net.au ([203.54.223.158]) by mail4.bigpond.com (Claudes-Ballistic-MailRouter V2.9b 7/412610); 19 Sep 2000 17:20:36 Message-ID: <01c701c021ae$02c27b60$1de136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] A question on Maastricht Appeal#2 Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 06:21:21 +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: > OK, what have I done wrong? > > We have had millions of posts on #3. #18 and #19 are getting >an airing on RGB. #20 has been considered. #16 is getting its >share of posts. > > Why has no-one complained about one of the appeals where >I was the scribe? This is discrimination! As an expert at complaining (and also as an expert at including typos in my posts), at your request I make the following complaints: (1) In Appeal #11, there are two "eight of spades". (2) In Appeal #17, in The Director's section, there's a misprint: "South" should read 'East'. (3) In Appeal #21, in the Result section, there's a misprint: the last word "redoubled" should read 'doubled' (4) As regards the actual Appeals rather than the transcription, there is an Appeal (#14) with you on the AC (not as scribe), where the logic of the decision is doubtful. The problems being: - The Committee found it "very hard to determine" which explanation was correct. Well, IMO North's explanation was obviously incorrect because her explanation is inconsistent with her hand. Didn't she simply accidentally omit to mention that she might have diamonds? Did the AC ask her if this was the case? South's explanation, since it matches North's hand, seems correct. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that North's explanation was incorrect. - I've just been reading that the WBF is not like the ACBL who sometimes require almost perfect bridge from the non-offenders. This case does not necessarily support that argument. East made a "mistake" and that was enough for the non-offending EW to maintain their bad score. West's 3D bid "let them off the hook" but no mention is made by the AC of the prevailing vulnerability which makes the 3D bid have some merit with the good source of tricks in hearts. The crucial point is that West doubled 2C for takeout, showing the other suits, usually including some diamonds. Hence from West's point of view East may have as little as DJxx for the double of 2D, making the 3D bid very attractive at the vulnerability (but 3D is much less attractive when East has been misinformed, but West does not know that East has received a wrong explanation). I wonder if EW speak enough English to have presented their case adequately? Although, even if they did not present their case, the AC can analyse the bidding logically, as I have done, and end up with far more sympathy for EW than the write-up suggests. IMO this is the most arguable AC decision of the lot. Put me down as a supporter of the TD's decision (600 to EW). That was the best I could find. Sorry to have disappointed you. 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 Sep 19 17:31:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8J7UiD20049 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 17:30:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8J7Udt20045 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 17:30:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.104.92]) by mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20000919073109.TGDH641613.mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 19:31:09 +1200 Message-ID: <02ef01c0220a$b9450720$576560cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <200009131510.e8DFAh312329@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ME or MB) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 17:49:26 +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: "Ron Johnson" > Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA writes: > > > > Call at the table, the TD looked at CCs. On N's CC it is > > written that 2D is weak. On S's CC, Flannery is clearly there. > > New partnership. N said he was sure the agreement > > was "weak 2D". S was convinced they play Flannery. > > > > In fact they have no agreement and the differing convention cards > are evidence of this. > > Mistaken explanation. > This is simplistic. There are other explanations for the discrepancy. One card was incorrectly filled out. Here there is evidence to the contrary it is just not conclusive. One card says Flannery - this is evidence. I think more questions need to be asked. 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 Tue Sep 19 17:31:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8J7Utq20055 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 17:30:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8J7Uot20051 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 17:30:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.104.92]) by mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20000919073120.TGDZ641613.mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 19:31:20 +1200 Message-ID: <02f001c0220a$bf0706e0$576560cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <005201c01c81$bdaa7e00$375408c3@dodona><002d01c017ff$db3d4960$abdd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com><4.3.2.7.1.20000913075856.00b2c590@127.0.0.1><3.0.6.32.20000913172338.008569c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000701c01e23$2a600b80$eb5608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] did insufficient to protect his own back ? Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 19:15:07 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ When replying to an 'opponent's inquiry ' > Law 75C must be satisfied. It is carefully worded > to apply to any inquiry about a call or play, and > makes it an offence to reply only to the question > as asked, omitting essential information which is > not attributable to general knowledge and > experience. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ And L75C directs us to the proper form of an enquiry found in L20. A player may request a "full explaination". Therefore any fault from an improper question and a subsequent incomplete answer surely must be shared between both sides. 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 Sep 19 17:31:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8J7VBQ20071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 17:31:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8J7Uxt20057 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 17:30:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.104.92]) by mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20000919073127.TGEI641613.mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 19:31:27 +1200 Message-ID: <02f101c0220a$c39c6d80$576560cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000913075856.00b2c590@127.0.0.1><005201c01c81$bdaa7e00$375408c3@dodona><002d01c017ff$db3d4960$abdd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] did insufficient to protect his own back ? Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 19:19:28 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Robert E. Harris" > A poorly-worded question is no excuse for a limited answer. Otherwise 75C > makes no sense. (If poorly-worded questions do not get a full answer under > 75C, what Law requires any answer at all? "Is it weak?" "Your question is > no good!" or "Mind your own business!") Similarly you must limit your chances of redress if you don't ask a proper question otherwise L20F1 makes no sense. Wayne Burrows -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 19 18:00:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8J80c020096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 18:00:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8J80Wt20092 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 18:00:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.18] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13bIKG-000GsV-00; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 09:00:24 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01c0220f$cd285440$125608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200009182303.TAA05513@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 09:00:22 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 12:03 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more +------------------- \x/ -----------------+ > > So I assume the pair in question failed to put the quotation marks > on their CC. This is an infraction. +=+ No mention at all of the tendency. If you put quotation marks you have to add an explanation somewhere on the card. Quotation marks say:"More or less Multi" or "Something like Multi". Without the explanation you are still not making prior disclosure in time for opponents to discuss their counteraction. That is part of the basis for saying it is a variation and not as described in the CB. Opponents cannot be expected simply to establish a defence to the Multi and use it in this new situation without further discussion. +=+ > ---------- \x/ ------------- > > OK, fair enough. I would think this would bring us to: > > > From: Michael Farebrother > > ...It's a CPU, you can't play it unless it's on your CC, it's > > too late to put it on your CC, so sorry. Note that this probably stops > > them from using the "random passes" in the KO stage as well, where BSCs > > are allowed. +=+ They were not allowed to add the understanding for the KO stages. With presubmitted CCs this was within the terms of the regulations. It was not considered the omission was 'trivial' since it introduces to a constructive method a partnership understanding in which the action is wholly and intentionally destructive. ~ 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 Sep 19 19:05:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8J94sG20139 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 19:04:54 +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 e8J94mt20135 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 19:04:49 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id KAA28100 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 10:04:40 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 10:04 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Five-and-a-half card majors 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: <4.3.2.7.1.20000918120051.00ab2280@127.0.0.1> Eric wrote: > Matter of opinion. I'd say no; 10xxx/KQx/Axxx/KJ isn't "different > enough" from 10xxxx/KQx/Axx/KJ to constitute a "gross distortion", > but others could reasonably disagree. But only the opinion of the bidder is important. It can only be a psyche if it is an attempt to distort the hand. If the bidder thinks it is the most descriptive bid it cannot be a psyche. 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 Tue Sep 19 19:29:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8J9TS420160 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 19:29:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8J9TLt20156 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 19:29:22 +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 13bJiG-000JC1-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 09:29:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 03:48:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeal #3 References: <000d01c01ba5$a3be85e0$5c5408c3@dodona> <008601c01c90$8ff2db60$375408c3@dodona> <19Ms+ABSajv5EwRj@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000701c01ddc$d52ed240$665608c3@dodona> <006301c021dc$9cb36c60$275908c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <006301c021dc$9cb36c60$275908c3@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: >> >ACs et al >> >are free to settle equity by any method they >> >choose when having recourse to 12C3. The >> >AC in the case made no mistake; it used its >> >powers within the policy laid down; the >> >argument you make is not about error but >> >about what may be desirable. >> >> Perhaps then you could re-read the paragraph I wrote, quoted above, to >> which you are replying. >> >+=+ I do not understand your point. Mine is that >the AC did quantify, in imps, and was acting >within its remit in doing so. Well, we knew that, because you had said it. But you then repeated it as though in answer to my post, which did not suggest they were outside their remit, just that I was very disappointed in them if that is what they did. -- 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 Sep 19 19:38:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8J9cNx20172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 19:38:23 +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 e8J9cHt20168 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 19:38:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.117] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13bJqs-000K7t-00; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 10:38:11 +0100 Message-ID: <000601c0221d$75da2340$755608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Peter Gill" , "Bridge Laws" References: <01c701c021ae$02c27b60$1de136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] A question on Maastricht Appeal#2 Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 09:17:33 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 9:21 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] A question on Maastricht Appeal#2 > David Stevenson wrote: > > OK, what have I done wrong? > > > That was the best I could find. Sorry to have disappointed you. > +=+ Faced with quite a small group of committee members to co-ordinate, I split them into two basic committees - one chaired by Joan Gerard and one by John Wignall, with the President of the TAC free to come and go as he would choose. I was a substitute on the bench to fill gaps as individuals were off the field for any reason. (There was a sin bin called 'Amsterdam'.) It may just be that the style of the group to which he was mainly attached gave Herman more trouble, so that David had to invent his own problems? ~ 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 Sep 19 21:20:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8JBJvd20220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 21:19:57 +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 e8JBJot20216 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 21:19:51 +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 NAA29812; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 13:19:25 +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 NAA19107; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 13:19:24 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000919132933.008eab40@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 13:29:33 +0200 To: "Art Brodsky" , "Bridge Laws" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal In-Reply-To: <002301c021b8$6b45a7c0$fd01bc18@downstairs> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 17:35 18/09/00 -0400, Art Brodsky wrote: > > S 96 >Dlr E H A63 >Vl EW D 9765 > C QT84 > >S KT2 S 43 >H T984 H KJ72 >D Q32 D A8 >C 652 C AKJ73 > > S AQJ875 > H Q5 > D KJT4 > C 9 > > >N E S W >_ 1C* 2H% P& >2S# 3C 3S AP > >Result: 3S-1: NS -50 > >*: Artificial, forcing, 16+ hcp >%: Spades or minors (as would 1H, only more so) >&: < 8 hcp >#: Semi-forced > >West's pass was preceded by 1 minute of tortured questioning. When play >concluded, NS called the director who rolled the auction back to 2S and +110 >for NS. EW appealed. The committee of three (of which I was the only >dissenter) overturned the director's ruling, claiming that pass was not a LA >with the east hand. The other AC members are among LI's best and regularly >play forcing club systems. I do not. Am I missing something? AG : East has, after all, a fairly minimal hand, in strength and distribution, for his strong opening, so a pass is quite possible (in fact, I'm an occasional Precisionist, and I would pass without qualms). So, East's action is indeed improper. Give East 1426 pattern and the same honor structure, and I would allow him his 3C bid. However, two more factors come into consideration : 1) It is quite possible (according to E/W's style, but most would do so) that West will reopen over 2S, most probably with a double. In this case, the final contract rates to be 3S anyway, or perhaps 3H by E/W, score to be assessed. I would not necessarily make the score +110. 2) While E/W's offenses are serious, I would not blame them too strongly, unless they are very, repeat very, experienced. Disruptive overcalls of artificial openings are fair enough, but you might expect opponents to be puzzled, so West's torrent of questions isn't as improper as it would have been in other cases. Regards, 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 Sep 19 21:33:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8JBWvb20233 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 21:32:57 +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 e8JBWot20229 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 21:32:51 +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 NAA03219; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 13:32:25 +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 NAA27074; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 13:32:24 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000919134233.007a6dc0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 13:42:33 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] self-serving arguments Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all, We all know we've to be wary of self-serving arguments in cases of UI. However, I've let them influence me on the following case : Pairs. Competent players. No screens. Kxx x AKQxxx Jxx x Kxx KQx AJxxxx 1H (2S)* 3H& 3S 4S# p 5C@ p 5H p p p * weak & E/W play their own version of lebensohl, or good/bad if you prefer. 3H is thus a constructive raise (a hand worth a limit 3H bid without the overcall), which seems fair evaluation. However, West took it as forcing, and explained it as such to a very puzzled South. # 1-suited general slam try @ 4NT, showing 1st round spade control, would have priority N/S called me because they considered East was influenced by the explanation, and knew that his partner was playing him for a stronger hand. With the diamond control, 6H would have been a LA (they didn't use the technical words, but it amounted to that) West replied that : 1) he couldn't have much more, since they open the French 2C (any 1-suited hand with 8 reasonably sure tricks) 2) 5H wasn't focusing on diamond control. The proof is, he had diamond control himself. So, he wasn't asking about diamond control, only making quantitative tries. The soundness of argument # 2 (which 'proved' N/S's argument about East's diamond control wasn't effective) convinced me to let the result stand. Was that fair ? 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 Sep 19 22:30:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8JCTV720336 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 22:29:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8JCTFt20323 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 22:29:16 +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 13bMWK-000OUT-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 13:29:10 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 12:07:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director References: <009a01c01e01$b37d2e60$dfe436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <009a01c01e01$b37d2e60$dfe436cb@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: >Hirsch Davis wrote: >>However, as a mitigating circumstance, I believe David >>Stevenson reported that the LC determined at Maastricht >>that a TD may not award greater than 60% unless a player's >>session average is higher. > >Reported where? On BLML or in the Daily Bulletins in Maastricht? 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 Tue Sep 19 22:30:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8JCTbu20337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 22:29:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8JCTFt20325 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 22:29:16 +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 13bMWK-000OUU-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 13:29:10 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 12:18:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A question on Maastricht Appeal#2 References: <01c701c021ae$02c27b60$1de136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <01c701c021ae$02c27b60$1de136cb@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 Stevenson wrote: >> OK, what have I done wrong? >> >> We have had millions of posts on #3. #18 and #19 are getting >>an airing on RGB. #20 has been considered. #16 is getting its >>share of posts. >> >> Why has no-one complained about one of the appeals where >>I was the scribe? This is discrimination! > > >As an expert at complaining (and also as an expert at including >typos in my posts), at your request I make the following complaints: > >(1) In Appeal #11, there are two "eight of spades". So there are! >(2) In Appeal #17, in The Director's section, there's a misprint: > "South" should read 'East'. True! >(3) In Appeal #21, in the Result section, there's a misprint: > the last word "redoubled" should read 'doubled' Correct! >(4) As regards the actual Appeals rather than the transcription, > there is an Appeal (#14) with you on the AC (not as scribe), > where the logic of the decision is doubtful. The problems being: > >- The Committee found it "very hard to determine" which explanation >was correct. Well, IMO North's explanation was obviously incorrect >because her explanation is inconsistent with her hand. Didn't she >simply accidentally omit to mention that she might have diamonds? >Did the AC ask her if this was the case? South's explanation, since it >matches North's hand, seems correct. The evidence overwhelmingly >suggests that North's explanation was incorrect. > >- I've just been reading that the WBF is not like the ACBL who >sometimes require almost perfect bridge from the non-offenders. >This case does not necessarily support that argument. I think it is fair to say that the ACs at Maastricht understood fully that ACBL approaches did not apply, so you are disagreeing with the AC's judgement rather than its approach. But I feel better now. Obviously I needed a proof-reader! -- 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 Sep 19 22:30:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8JCTVZ20335 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 22:29:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8JCTFt20324 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 22:29:16 +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 13bMWK-000OUS-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 13:29:10 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 12:06:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000914080035.00ab02d0@127.0.0.1> <003401c01e6d$d72700e0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <003401c01e6d$d72700e0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >Looking at L12C1, we see that the artificial adjustment for >an at-fault contestant is "at most 40%," with no stated >minimum. Surely the corollary is that 100% should be the >limit for a no-fault contestant. The WBFLC has interpreted L12C1. I do believe this is a case where an interpretation was helpful, since the wording seems slightly flawed, so can we not accept their interpretation and carry on? Their interpretation is that the at least 60% *only* refers to the fact that it will be more than 60% when the contestant's session average is greater than 60%. [So the ACBL interpretation is at variance with the WBFLC interpretation: to be fair their interpretation was much earlier.] Their interpretation is that the at most 40% refers to giving the contestant less than 40% when the contestant's session average is less than 40%. -- 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 Sep 19 22:35:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8JCZOL20361 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 22:35:24 +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 e8JCZEt20357 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 22:35:15 +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 OAA07389; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 14:33:36 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id OAA07797; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 14:34:47 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000919144456.007d7dd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 14:44:56 +0200 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Five-and-a-half card majors 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 10:04 19/09/00 +0100, Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20000918120051.00ab2280@127.0.0.1> >Eric wrote: >But only the opinion of the bidder is important. It can only be a >psyche if it is an attempt to distort the hand. If the bidder thinks >it is the most descriptive bid it cannot be a psyche. AG : a very interesting view indeed. I would very much like to see it integrated in jurisprudency. It would be quite useful. Is this conceivable ? 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 Sep 19 22:46:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8JCk0P20378 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 22:46:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8JCjot20374 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 22:45:50 +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 e8JCjkC23735 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 08:45:46 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000919080423.00ab2230@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, 19 Sep 2000 08:47:01 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] BSC - more In-Reply-To: <002801c021ac$3367b520$23c3e080@isi.com> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000918144740.00b3d290@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:08 PM 9/18/00, Richard wrote: > > BLML might not be the appropriate place to discuss political > > philosophy, > > but I beg to differ with Grattan. As Hitler and Stalin so > > successfully > > demonstrated, the outward trappings of democratic process -- > > such as the > > right to vote in elections -- do not make a government > > democratic. I find > > it somewhat offensive to dismiss the millions of oppressed German > > and Soviet citizens who voted in those elections as having gotten > > the governments they deserved. > >Another excellent post by Eric. >I would like to point out one point that he did not mention >explicitly. >There is one effective way for members to express their displeasure >with such an organization. >It is always possible to vote with your feet and either not join the >organization or refuse to renew ones membership. >I would argue that examining the membership numbers provides a very >effective indication of the level of satisfaction with the >organization heirarchy. That's the theory, but it doesn't really work that way. In an organization as large and multi-layered as the ACBL, the number of people who will make the decision whether to join or not, or whether to re-up or not, based on their view of how the organization is run at the top is extremely marginal at best. If you want to play tournament bridge in North America, where else are you going to go? Membership in a local area may correllate with how well the local organization is run at the bottom level, but by the time people have been members for long enough to even become aware of what's going on at the top levels of management, their satisfaction with that management is insignificant in terms of deciding whether to remain in the organization when compared with other considerations, except for a few folks at the margin who really care. I'm one of those who does care, and I haven't paid dues to the ACBL in over a decade. But even in the rather large Washington Bridge League, I'm one of only three players (all highly experienced with decades of membership behind them) who have dropped out over dissatisfaction with management (and one of those eventually rejoined after discovering that he still wanted to play and had nowhere else to go). In real life I develop business software. I use Microsoft products. They suck. I could "vote with my feet" and refuse to buy or use Microsoft products, but I'd be out of business tomorrow, even though the software I could write for and with their competitors' products would be every bit as good. And the ACBL's monopoly of tournament bridge makes Microsoft's monopoly of operating systems and office-suite software look like a model of free competition. Sure, you can "vote with your feet" and walk, but where to? 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 Sep 19 22:58:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8JCwOU20392 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 22:58:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8JCwEt20388 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 22:58:15 +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 e8JCwAO40807 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 08:58:10 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000919085130.00ab0ed0@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, 19 Sep 2000 08:59:26 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more In-Reply-To: <014f01c021be$8f509660$576560cb@laptop> References: <3.0.1.32.20000914235644.01402c90@pop.mindspring.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000918082315.00ab42f0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20000918153013.00b3c100@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:26 PM 9/18/00, Wayne wrote: >The anomilies created by an open ended interpretation of L40D are themselves >open ended. > >All of the following would be valid regulations: > >If your 1nt opening may have more than 10hcp then you cannot play any >conventions; > >If you bypass a four-card major you may not play conventions; > >If you open 5-card majors you can not play conventions; > >If you opening may include the h8 then you may not play conventions As would these: You may not play conventions. You may play the McConnell convention. You may not play any other conventions. You may play the complete Smith system as described in the book "The Smith System", but only if you play it exactly as written with no deviations. You may not play any other conventions. You must play the complete Smith system exactly as written with no deviations. When holding the queen and jack of the same suit, you must play the jack first. (Lest we forget that L40D covers play as well as bidding conventions.) 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 Sep 19 23:45:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8JDiPW20430 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 23:44:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8JDiFt20426 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 23:44:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-196.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.196]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA26341 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 15:44:06 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39C7669B.5DA6D06@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 15:14:03 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] A question on Maastricht Appeal#2 References: <01c701c021ae$02c27b60$1de136cb@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: > > > - The Committee found it "very hard to determine" which explanation > was correct. Well, IMO North's explanation was obviously incorrect > because her explanation is inconsistent with her hand. Didn't she > simply accidentally omit to mention that she might have diamonds? > Did the AC ask her if this was the case? South's explanation, since it > matches North's hand, seems correct. The evidence overwhelmingly > suggests that North's explanation was incorrect. > Well sorry Peter, but that is too simple. She actually has both majors, so if she intends 2Di to mean this, she would say so, wouldn't she ? Normally it is the person making the explanation who will state exactly what she intends. So in that sense, both explanations fit the actual hand. It was a difficult 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 Tue Sep 19 23:53:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8JDqoo20462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 23:52:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8JDqit20458 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 23:52:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id JAA05246 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 09:52:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id JAA12294 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 09:52:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 09:52:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200009191352.JAA12294@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > if West, having another chance to bid, is then going to pass > with a hand in the upper range for his previous pass. This really > depends on E-W's system. We'd need to find out what E-W's agreements > are (if any) in this situation: what's the most East can have to pass > 2S, and what does West have to have before he's required to reopen. Quite right. One possible outcome is 2Sx=. But as Adam says, a lot depends on exactly what the "tortured questioning" does or does not suggest about West's hand as well as on the EW system. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 20 02:16:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8JGFhT20558 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 02:15:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8JGFdt20554 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 02:15:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot23.domain2.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id da768771 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 02:11:00 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-226-129.tmns.net.au ([203.54.226.129]) by mail2.bigpond.com (Claudes-Certifiable-MailRouter V2.9b 3/907963); 20 Sep 2000 02:10:59 Message-ID: <003901c021f8$13ad3ba0$81e236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] A question on Maastricht Appeal#2 Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 15:07:53 +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 Herman de Wael wrote: >She actually has both majors..... She has 3-3- in the majors. If someone says that they have both majors and turns up with 3-3, partner not having shown any majors, I would be most surprised, feeling misled. That's just my view, it doesn't have to be everyone else's view. >It was a difficult case. True. Possibly made even more difficult if the players' English was limited. Many of the more doubtful (or confusing) appeals at Maastricht and Lille were from matches between two countries for which English is not the mother tongue. At the PABF events (in the Far East) appeals have language problems too. I don't know if anyone else considers that this is a problem for ACs nor know if there is a solution. My view is that the Indonesians lost the appeal partly because the Director had already ruled their way, so there was not much need for them to present their case, relative to the situation where they are the appellants and thus have to present a case. As a result, I think their case was understated and certain lines of thought may have been omitted so that a marginal decision went decidedly the inferior way. Then again, I may be behind the times. The only three AC decisions which I don't much like (#14, #18 and #19) all are doubtful cases where I would have followed the traditional method of ruling in favour of the non-offending side, whereas the three ACs appear to have tried to follow the newer approach of ruling as equitably as possible without the tendency to favour the NOs in doubtful cases. By the way, I didn't find any misprints in HdW's write-ups. 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 Sep 20 04:02:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8JI1Jj20641 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 04:01:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8JI1Ct20637 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 04:01:13 +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 OAA16156 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 14:03:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200009191803.OAA16156@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Five-and-a-half card majors Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <00ca01c021a3$f97a46a0$576560cb@laptop> References: <200009181755.KAA01980@mailhub.irvine.com> <00ca01c021a3$f97a46a0$576560cb@laptop> Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 14:03:38 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 19 September 2000 at 6:55, "Wayne Burrows" wrote: > [on the view that repeated instances can create "partnership agreements" according to the WBF CoP:] >I have a problem with this view and the regulation in the CoP. > As do I, but for other reasons. I laud the efforts of Grattan to remove the ambiguity currently in the Laws related to "partnership agreement" vs "partnership understanding". >L75B does not say that habitual violations "will" create a partnership >agreement but only that they "may" create a partnership agreement. I do hope, however, that you will still disclose your understanding of your partner's judgement, when appropriate. On a side note, (and this has been covered before) when does difference in judgement/style become "two different systems"? For example, I am an aggressive preemptor (not insane, but aggressive). I would consider KQTxxxx x xxx xxx an acceptable, non-minimum, 3S opener first seat at any vul except unfavourable and at any scoring. Obviously, my partners know this and account for it in their responses. One of my (infrequent) partner's idea of a first-seat 3S opener is AKJTxxx Kxx x xx. And that probably shares as much distance to his minimum as the first hand does to my minimum. This, to me, seems like a difference of "judgement" akin to one partner opening 4=4=3=2 hands 1C and the other, 1D. After all, I am more likely to bid his 3S opener 1S than I am to even consider a preempt. Now, I solve the problem (and ease partner's mind) by following Simon's advice, and "sounding up" my preempts a bit^Wlot. But if I didn't, would that just be judgement? And if partner respects my preempts' weakness while I respect partner's preempts' strength in our responses, are we still just using "judgement"? And if on board 11, the auction goes (me dealer) 3S-AP, and dummy puts down a decent 3-trick 12-count; and then on board 17 (to make the vul. the same) the auction goes (pd dealer) 3S-p-4S-AP, and dummy hits with the same 3-trick 12-count, aren't our opponents going to be a bit disturbed? 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 Sep 20 04:04:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8JI3ud20653 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 04:03:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8JI3ot20649 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 04:03:51 +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 OAA21782 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 14:03:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA12557 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 14:03:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 14:03:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200009191803.OAA12557@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Now about Maastricht appeal 14 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > I think it is fair to say that the ACs at Maastricht understood fully > that ACBL approaches did not apply, so you are disagreeing with the AC's > judgement rather than its approach. No, it's the approach that is in question. The second paragraph of the writeup is: It was clear that if West had received the explanation that North had provided, she would not have made the call of three diamonds. Equally clear was that East would not have let three diamonds become the final contract had she received the explanation that South had provided. Given that finding, it is very hard to understand how the 3D contract could be let stand. Even if you think the EW actions were "irrational, wild, or gambling," the score still should have been adjusted for NS. One of those explanations must have been wrong, and thus _a_ clear cause of the table result was MI. Too many TD's and AC's are asking the wrong question, and David himself has criticized the approach in the past. The proper question is not "Given the MI, did the NOS make a mistake?" Instead it is "Had they been given correct information, would the NOS have done better?" As a reminder, the appeals can be found at: http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/maastrict.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 Sep 20 05:12:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8JJBmh20691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 05:11:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8JJBgt20687 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 05:11:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.24]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 12:11:55 -0700 Message-ID: <025c01c0226c$fc06f2a0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <00dd01c01e81$98d0a940$71d736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <006c01c02031$d5e1b840$125608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 12:05:22 -0700 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: > > >+=+ WBFLC Minute of 30th August 2000.:- > > >"The Committee addressed any situation when, as the > > >result of an irregularity, a result cannot be obtained > > >and an artificial adjusted score would normally be > > >awarded. If a non-offending side would be disadvantaged > > >by an award of average plus (60%, or higher where > > >Law 88 allows) the Committee does not consider a > > >higher percentage may be awarded under Law 12C1. > > >If the circumstances allow the Director may assign > > >a score under Law 12A1 or Law 84E." > > > > Is the possibility of a Director going via Law 12A2 to Law 88, > > and awarding say 85%, deliberately omitted? > > (not an unlikely scenario, given that Law 12A2 directly > > refers the Director to Law 88). > > > > Peter Gill. > > > +=+ The WBFLC ruled that the only circumstances > in which Law 88 authorizes an award of over 60% > is when the percentage obtained on the boards > actually played in the session exceeds 60%. When > the conditions specified in 12A1 are present, or > those in 84E, an assigned adjusted score may be > awarded; to trigger this there has to be an > irregularity or a violation of law committed by > opponent. This is what 'if the circumstances allow' > means: the Director has to find that opponents > have offended. > As for 'a minimum of' I have some difficulty > with the meaning; no question was voiced in the > WBFLC concerning the ruling - I remained silent > because I did not know what I wanted to say. > What I feel in the light of the ruling is that, for > example, maybe when a top is 142 and decimals > are not an option, the average plus must be 86 > not 85. But I think we need a better statement > of the law when we get down to work. It is very difficult to believe that the writer of L88 had that possibility in mind. I see only two possibilities: 1. The writer(s) of L88 intended the WBFLC's interpretation, but didn't know how to write (the words "a minimum of" being unnecesary and confusing). 2. The WBFLC members who came up with this interpretation don't know how to read. I suspect the latter. When L12C1 prescribes "a maximum of 40%" for the offending side, does that merely mean that 40% of 142 (56.8) must be rounded down to 56, not up to 57? I don't think so. I think it means that an adjustment anywhere from 0 to 40% may be appropriate. If that is correct, then L88 is prescribing a minimum of 60%, but no less than the percentage achieved on boards actually played during the session. If it is incorrect, then I am the one who doesn't know how to read. This seemed like a good subject to research in the earlier versions of the Laws, but the present wording of L88 (then L107) goes back to 1963 essentially unchanged. So I went back further, to 1946. It is sometimes possible, when looking at older versions of the Laws, to see that later writers, when changing some detail, may have inadvertently altered the main intent. In 1946, when awarding an artificial average score ("neutral score," in those days) with one side at fault, the TD penalized the offending pair and indemnified the non-offenders, as follows: "It is suggested that the penalty or indemnity to a single pair be not less than 10% nor more than 25%." A footnote (now gone) stated that the resulting scores were to be computed to the *nearest* half-point (halves are used on this side of the ocean), with exact fractions computed if that would break a tie. In other words, 25% to 40% for the offending pair, 60% to 75% for the non-offenders. Seems reasonable. This leads me to believe that the 1963(?) addition of language to change the minimum for the non-offenders to at least the actual percentage earned on other boards, instead of 60%, had the intent, not of fixing exact percentages for both sides, but of changing the ranges to 0-40% and 60-100%, while saying that the non-offenders should, as a minimum, get the percentage earned on other boards in the session. In any event, the round-off footnote ought to be restored. Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, 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 Wed Sep 20 05:22:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8JJLue20703 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 05:21:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8JJLot20699 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 05:21:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.24]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 12:22:04 -0700 Message-ID: <026501c0226e$669a2960$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200009191803.OAA12557@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Now about Maastricht appeal 14 Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 12:12:27 -0700 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 Willner wrote: > > Too many TD's and AC's are asking the wrong question, and David himself > has criticized the approach in the past. The proper question is not > "Given the MI, did the NOS make a mistake?" Instead it is "Had they > been given correct information, would the NOS have done better?" > I suggest, "Had they been given correct information, is there a fair chance that the NOS would have done better?" Certainty is not required (and I'm sure Steve did not mean to imply that it is). Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, 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 Wed Sep 20 05:29:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8JJT9520716 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 05:29:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8JJT3t20712 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 05:29:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA18456 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 15:31:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200009191931.PAA18456@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <014f01c021be$8f509660$576560cb@laptop> References: <3.0.1.32.20000914235644.01402c90@pop.mindspring.com><4.3.2.7.1.20000918082315.00ab42f0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20000918153013.00b3c100@127.0.0.1> <014f01c021be$8f509660$576560cb@laptop> Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 15:31:30 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 19 September 2000 at 9:26, "Wayne Burrows" wrote: >From: "Eric Landau" >> >> If the authority vested in SOs by L40D to regulate conventions is >> open-ended and unlimited, then, just as SOs have the undeniable authority >> to prohibit the use of any convention they may choose to, they have the >> equivalent authority, vested by the same law, to require the use of any >> convention they may choose to. >> >> Is this indeed the position of the WBF? > [snip several regulations that the WBFLC have expressly considered legal uner L40D, from the reasonably sane to the ridiculous] >I am a simple sole - I believe that if the law contains a restriction then >that means that there is a restriction not an endless number of ways of >getting around the apparent restriction. > This turns us full circle to the last time L40D, and SO's powers therein was debated here, so concisely summarized by (Peter G.?). It comes from differing views of what Laws are for, and their relationships with governing bodies. Those that read the Laws like Eric (and I, for that matter), are conditioned by country to believe a) that Laws specifically allow or restrict certain actions, or describe the procedures that must be followed for an action to be legal, and b) believe that entities (including, but not especially, governing entities) will push any bounds given as far as they can. In addition, those from the USA are conditioned into believing that if it isn't written down, it isn't Law (those of us whose countries had more peaceable splits from the UK tend to have more respect for "unwritten Law". Those of us whose countries physically abut the USA are having that respect stripped away, rather quickly). So, to them (us?), cynicism of our governing entities is not only unsurprising, it's SOP (standard operating procedure). "And the thing about being cynical is, you're rarely disappointed." But before calling us too cynical, remember that ours is the SO that has twice decided, in its infinite wisdom, that people want to only play one bidding system. The results are a horrible kludge that I am forced to teach my novices because they can't get an OKB partner otherwise, and - nothing. Anyone outside the ACBL remember even what that other, more recent, attempt was called? Naturally, we would like to (and assumed we could) take refuge in L40D as a limit on the insanity that our SO can force us into (can regulate only conventions and ultra-light one-level openings). It seems in other parts of the world, where the relationship between governers and governed has some basis in mutual respect, rather than mutual distrust, that L40D would be read as making it clear that SOs *can* actually regulate these things. No restrictive nature whatever (Though none of the foregoing explains this "heretic" from NZ. Welcome to the club of suspicion, Wayne). Frankly, I *want* some restriction on what the SO can do to me. In return, I am willing to abide by reasonable restrictions on what I can inflict on other members of the SO - I actually believe that certain restrictions on natural calls in selected, perhaps even most, games would be good for the Game[1]. What I don't like is that L40D, despite its explicit use of the word Convention, is being used to restrict those natural methods, because I can't know what they're going to go after next. And I know they're going to go after something, soon. How do I know this? I'm cynical. Michael. [1] But don't tell me the system proliferation is what's keeping the younger, especially the junior, members out of the game. You're talking to someone who, after explaining that "anything is legal in my club. Just have a defence for the opponents" had to defend against a 4C opener that meant "LHO, would you like to spend the night with me, after the game?" (No, I will not say if the opening actually came up at my table, nor what my answer was or would have been.) They had about 35 rules (most of which had some connection with bridge) in their bidding system (including Herbert positives, though they didn't know that Herbert Negatives even existed). They had never been to a tournament outside the university. They didn't ask any of the "tournament" bridge players (including the 3 Junior Internationals they had available) for help creating the system. Yes, they were playing around, but everyone had 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 Sep 20 05:53:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8JJr7e20734 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 05:53:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8JJr0t20730 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 05:53:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2iveskb.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.114.139]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA09660 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 15:52:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000919155247.0141a498@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 15:52:47 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more In-Reply-To: <200009191931.PAA18456@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> References: <014f01c021be$8f509660$576560cb@laptop> <3.0.1.32.20000914235644.01402c90@pop.mindspring.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000918082315.00ab42f0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20000918153013.00b3c100@127.0.0.1> <014f01c021be$8f509660$576560cb@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:31 PM 9/19/2000 -0400, Michael wrote: >[1] But don't tell me the system proliferation is what's keeping >the younger, especially the junior, members out of the game. >You're talking to someone who, after explaining that "anything >is legal in my club. Just have a defence for the opponents" >had to defend against a 4C opener that meant >"LHO, would you like to spend the night with me, after the game?" >(No, I will not say if the opening actually came up at my table, nor >what my answer was or would have been.) Indeed, it would have been indiscreet of you to go into too much detail about what came up at your table in reaction to such a question. 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 Wed Sep 20 06:32:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8JKVgH20762 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 06:31:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8JKVZt20758 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 06:31:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2iveskb.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.114.139]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA08704 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 16:31:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000919163123.0141e304@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 16:31:23 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving arguments In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000919134233.007a6dc0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:42 PM 9/19/2000 +0200, Alain wrote: >N/S called me because they considered East was influenced by the >explanation, and knew that his partner was playing him for a stronger hand. >With the diamond control, 6H would have been a LA (they didn't use the >technical words, but it amounted to that) > >West replied that : >1) he couldn't have much more, since they open the French 2C (any 1-suited >hand with 8 reasonably sure tricks) >2) 5H wasn't focusing on diamond control. The proof is, he had diamond >control himself. So, he wasn't asking about diamond control, only making >quantitative tries. > >The soundness of argument # 2 (which 'proved' N/S's argument about East's >diamond control wasn't effective) convinced me to let the result stand. > >Was that fair ? First, E/W seem to have a rather strange method here. To force yourself into beginning a q-bid sequence at the 5-level seems pretty bizarre, and I would like to enquire as to the systemic alternatives for W at his 2nd term, and what 4S suggested as compared to 4C or 4D or (possibly) 3NT. Structurally, West's actions have the feel of assuming captaincy, and East, lacking first-round control in the two side suits, might reasonably feel compelled to respect West's decision to stop. Then too, I am still slightly puzzled by the juxtaposition of "constructive" and "limit raise". Systemically, which is it? In terms of playing strength, East clearly has a hyper-maximum constructive raise, understood as a raise only slightly weaker than a limit raise, in my terminology. Even as a limit raise, East has quite solid values, with good prospects in a long side suit and second-round control of the other 2 side suits, albeit with poor trumps. What (in the absence of UI) does West's sequence ask from East, systemically? One possibility is that it focuses strongly on spades. After all, East cooperated by bidding 5C, so if this answer was discouraging to West, then it could (should) be that he is concerned about 2 quick spade losers, and East has help here. Finally, West's explanation that the systemic meaning of his sequence is just a general purpose slam invitation is a) ridiculous and b) unhelpful to his position. It is ridiculous because East has systemically limited his hand to a rather narrow range (although West apparently forgot this) and so there is little merit in a generic slam try that asks East to evaluate his hand in general. It is unhelpful because if it does request that East bid a slam with extras for his bidding, it can be argued that that's exactly what East has. So unless E/W can convince me that Pass is systemically mandated, (focusing on trump quality, for example), then 6H is indeed a LA, made less attractive by West's explanation. A relatively rare form of UI forcing a more aggressive choice. 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 Wed Sep 20 06:47:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8JKlRN20779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 06:47:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8JKlLt20775 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 06:47:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id QAA02412 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 16:47:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA12704 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 16:47:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 16:47:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200009192047.QAA12704@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Now about Maastricht appeal 14 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > I suggest, "Had they been given correct information, is > there a fair chance that the NOS would have done better?" > Certainty is not required (and I'm sure Steve did not mean > to imply that it is). Right. Thanks, Marv. Even better, as someone on RGB pointed out, is "How big is the chance they would have done better?" This is what you will need to decide for a L12C3 adjustment. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 20 08:06:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8JM5pD20856 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 08:05:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8JM5jt20852 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 08:05:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id SAA12605 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 18:05:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA12775 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 18:05:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 18:05:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200009192205.SAA12775@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > It is not acceptable to use the > international laws of the game for the purpose, > nor to expect that the will of the worldwide > majority should be set aside for the interest of > any single NBO or any single Zone. Do we all agree that the purpose (or at least one purpose) of the Laws is to _define_ the game of Duplicate Contract Bridge? If we agree on that much, then it's a matter of judgment and degree which specific rules are so important that they define the game and thus belong in the Laws and which are optional or a matter of preference and thus for Zones, NCBO's, or SO's to decide for themselves. I suggest that few would wish to leave L44C to SO discretion! At the other extreme, I suggest that keeping, say, L78A and deleting B, C, and D would also meet with little approval. While there are no doubt a few other laws in each of these categories, i.e., that local discretion is either ridiculous or demanded, it strikes me that reasonable people may well disagree about a great many other laws. L40D is one that falls in the middle, in my view. Certainly there is good reason to allow SO's latitude for regulation, especially in special contests such as Individual or "Prescribed System" events. On the other hand, regulations mandating some of the more ridiculous examples would make the game not bridge. This has nothing to do with the interests of any particular NCBO's. While "conventions and light initial actions" versus "everything else" might not be the right place to draw the line between "regulable" and "not regulable," it seems to me that there is such a line to be drawn. Reasonable people will disagree on where that line is. I have a great deal of sympathy for Grattan's position. The practical difficulties of drawing the required line are immense, and the rewards are perhaps meager. It's easy to understand why the people who have to do the work are eager to give up and say "SO's can regulate whatever they want." But I think the LC has a duty to try to reach some judgment on how far the regulators can go before it's "not bridge." It seems to me that the germ of a possible approach may in the laws already. There is a distinction drawn between "style and judgment" on the one hand and "method" on the other. Perhaps attaching clear meanings to these (perhaps using different words) is the way forward. Or perhaps not. But it does seem to me that the LC have a duty to try. Otherwise we may find ourselves playing Euchre or Pinochle or something worse. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 20 09:29:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8JNT0321038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 09:29:00 +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 e8JNSpt21034 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 09:28:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.240] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13bWoe-0000m9-00; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 00:28:45 +0100 Message-ID: <000c01c02291$7d707c20$f05408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200009191803.OAA12557@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Now about Maastricht appeal 14 Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 21:43:57 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 7:03 PM Subject: [BLML] Now about Maastricht appeal 14 ------------------ \x/ -------------- > > Given that finding, it is very hard to understand how the 3D contract > could be let stand. Even if you think the EW actions were "irrational, > wild, or gambling," the score still should have been adjusted for NS. > One of those explanations must have been wrong, and thus _a_ clear > cause of the table result was MI. > > Too many TD's and AC's are asking the wrong question, and David himself > has criticized the approach in the past. The proper question is not > "Given the MI, did the NOS make a mistake?" Instead it is "Had they > been given correct information, would the NOS have done better?" > +=+ The Committee has given its reasoning in this case. Without commenting upon it I would suggest that any criticism should deal with the reasons given for their decisions. The committee appears to say that the poor result was not judged to be related to any MI. We seem to be in the area of 'consequent' and 'subsequent', an aspect little to the fore in ACs since August 1998 when the WBFLC settled that "an advantage gained by an offender (see Law 72B1), provided it is related to the infraction and not obtained solely by the good play of the offenders, shall be construed as an advantage in the table score whether consequent or subsequent to the 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 Wed Sep 20 10:26:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8K0QOX21095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Sep 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 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 e8K0QHt21091 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 10:26:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.15.) id 9.d0.b3a2575 (4390); Tue, 19 Sep 2000 20:24:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 20:24:56 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] Now about Maastricht appeal 14 To: Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk, willner@cfa.harvard.edu, 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 Beautiful desfenc(s)e by Gratan for the Committee. Hardly rebuttable. Does anyone want to discuss the TD decision? Or is the concept still that the TD decision is just an interim step while the greater muck-de-mucks of the committee are the only ones who can really arrive at the correct decision? Vuva ACBL's attitude that when yhou go to committee the TDdecision does not count. What happened to the Code of Practice idea that the TD decision would prevail unless the AC overwhelmingly found it to be wrong? I seriously don't think that the bridge administrators are ready to accept the Code of Practice for Appeals Committees. I feel that they are saying, "yeah, go ahead and do what you want, but when it comes to us, the old values (which happen to justify their existence) apply." Ergo -- death of progress. For anyone remotely interested I have looked over the 21 decuisions of the Appeals Committee in Maastricht. The ACs upheld the TD on 11 decisions. The AC changed 4 decisions with minor impact on the result. (Usually 12C3). The AC blew it on 3 decisions #12, 14, and the most infamous #19, and the TDs got it wrong on #21. Anyone want to argue with my thoughts? 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 Sep 20 14:37:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8K4aGT22008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 14:36:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.0.213]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8K4a7t22002 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 14:36:08 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 4E4659051; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 00:36:03 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 00:35:36 -0400 To: Bill Schoder From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] Now about Maastricht appeal 14 Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 8:24 PM -0400 9/19/00, Kojak wrote: >Does anyone want to discuss the TD decision? As I told you in Maastricht I thought the TD decisions were excellent, the best I can remember, and certainly better than the committee decisions. >For anyone remotely interested I have looked over the 21 decisions of the >Appeals Committee in Maastricht. > >The ACs upheld the TD on 11 decisions. >The AC changed 4 decisions with minor impact on the result. (Usually 12C3). >The AC blew it on 3 decisions #12, 14, and the most infamous #19, and the >TDs got it wrong on #21. Anyone want to argue with my thoughts? I compiled my own list before looking at yours. I put the decisions into 4 categories: Good Poor Close / Had to be there 12C3 I've been meaning to mention here that I consider it important to categorize decisions in more ways than just "Good" and "Poor", as Rich Colker has been doing in the ACBL appeals booklets. Some cases are genuinely too close to call, and I wouldn't consider a decision for either side poor. The close cases are outnumbered by the clearcut cases, and I think we should concentrate on getting the clearcut cases right before we worry about the close ones. I put 12C3 into its own category for any of a number of reasons. Mainly it's because it seems to me that no 12C3 decision can be called incorrect. 12C3 empowers a committee to do "equity", whatever it considers equity to be, so I fail to see how an adjustment a committee claims it considers equitable could be unlawful. As you can imagine this is one reason I consider 12C3 a dreadful law. Another point to remember is that we are seeing all the committee rulings but only a fraction of the director rulings - most director's rulings are not appealed. The specifics of any of these appeals I think are best discussed in a separate thread, but I'm happy indicate the direction of my thoughts. I will argue with you on appeal #21 - I thought it was too close to call. I also thought #12 was too close to call. I agree that the AC blew it on #14 and #19. I also thought they made a bad ruling on #10, changing a perfectly good director's ruling. This was a 12C3 case, but the committee's reasoning seems seriously flawed. In cases #5 and #11, where the committee essentially upheld the director's ruling, I thought that both the director and committee rulings were poor, though again the committee applied 12C3 in case #5. In that case (and no other) the committee did note that they were following the CoP in regard to the director's ruling - good for them! Adam Wildavsky -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 20 17:03:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8K72vf22594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:02:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8K72ot22589 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:02:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA09512 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 09:02:46 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Sep 20 09:04:00 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JUE2HL9XVU001GMV@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 09:02:36 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 08:59:31 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 09:02:27 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Now about Maastricht appeal 14 To: "'Schoderb@aol.com'" , Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk, willner@cfa.harvard.edu, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6A7@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I agree with your analysis, not necessarily regarding the decisions made on case-level but describing the general approach. If appeal committees refuse to accept the ideas we developed in the CoP, we need to tell that and 'Paris' should take measures. Let us start to inform Jose Damiani when we agree on this. I myself am reassured in the idea to ban AC's at all, given a competent staff of TD's is available. ton > > Beautiful desfenc(s)e by Gratan for the Committee. Hardly > rebuttable. Does > anyone want to discuss the TD decision? Or is the concept > still that the TD > decision is just an interim step while the greater > muck-de-mucks of the > committee are the only ones who can really arrive at the > correct decision? > Vuva ACBL's attitude that when yhou go to committee the > TDdecision does not > count. What happened to the Code of Practice idea that the > TD decision would > prevail unless the AC overwhelmingly found it to be wrong? > > I seriously don't think that the bridge administrators are > ready to accept > the Code of Practice for Appeals Committees. I feel that they > are saying, > "yeah, go ahead and do what you want, but when it comes to > us, the old values > (which happen to justify their existence) apply." Ergo -- > death of progress. > > For anyone remotely interested I have looked over the 21 > decuisions of the > Appeals Committee in Maastricht. > > The ACs upheld the TD on 11 decisions. > The AC changed 4 decisions with minor impact on the result. > (Usually 12C3). > The AC blew it on 3 decisions #12, 14, and the most infamous > #19, and the > TDs got it wrong on #21. Anyone want to argue with my thoughts? > > 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 Sep 20 17:44:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8K7iPd22736 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:44:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8K7iIt22731 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:44:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA27360 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 09:44:15 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Sep 20 09:45:31 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JUE3WFDX34001GOQ@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 09:43:34 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 09:40:36 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 09:08:11 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Now about Maastricht appeal 14 To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , Steve Willner , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6A8@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 > > > > > Given that finding, it is very hard to understand how the > 3D contract > > could be let stand. Even if you think the EW actions were > "irrational, > > wild, or gambling," the score still should have been > adjusted for NS. > > One of those explanations must have been wrong, and thus _a_ clear > > cause of the table result was MI. > > > > Too many TD's and AC's are asking the wrong question, and > David himself > > has criticized the approach in the past. The proper question is not > > "Given the MI, did the NOS make a mistake?" Instead it is "Had they > > been given correct information, would the NOS have done better?" > > > +=+ The Committee has given its reasoning in this > case. Without commenting upon it I would suggest > that any criticism should deal with the reasons > given for their decisions. The committee appears > to say that the poor result was not judged to be > related to any MI. > We seem to be in the area of 'consequent' > and 'subsequent', an aspect little to the fore > in ACs since August 1998 when the WBFLC > settled that "an advantage gained by an > offender (see Law 72B1), provided it is > related to the infraction and not obtained > solely by the good play of the offenders, shall > be construed as an advantage in the table > score whether consequent or subsequent > to the infraction" ~ Grattan ~ +=+. > > Good to add that this approach is not necessarily the same for the non offending side and regarding its potential disadvantage. Which is another reason not to hammer on complementary scores in case of applying 12C3, in my opinion. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 20 22:16:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8KCGCp23544 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 22:16:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8KCG5t23540 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 22:16:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from pabs05a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.85.172] helo=pacific) by cobalt1-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13bijp-0007iV-00; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 05:12:34 -0700 Message-ID: <004201c022fc$0fc5d420$ac5593c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Grattan Endicott'" , "Steve Willner" , References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6A8@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Now about Maastricht appeal 14 Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 10:56:58 +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 5.00.2314.1300 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' ; Steve Willner ; Sent: 20 September 2000 08:08 Subject: RE: [BLML] Now about Maastricht appeal 14 > > > > Good to add that this approach is not necessarily the same for the non > offending side and regarding its potential disadvantage. Which is another > reason not to hammer on complementary scores in case of applying 12C3, in my > opinion. > +=+ This type of case is not a 12C3 issue. Where the non-offending side is judged to have contributed to its own damage, the offending side is not to receive the benefit of its opponents gratuity. This is a case where complementary scores are not appropriate. +=+ G +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 20 22:16:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8KCFvW23537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 22:15:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8KCFot23533 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 22:15:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from pabs05a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.85.172] helo=pacific) by cobalt1-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13bijr-0007iV-00; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 05:12:36 -0700 Message-ID: <004301c022fc$10eacc20$ac5593c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Adam Wildavsky" , "Bill Schoder" Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Now about Maastricht appeal 14 Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 13:11:22 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0033_01C02304.45CBCF40" 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_0033_01C02304.45CBCF40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Grattan Endicott To: Bill Schoder Cc: Sent: 20 September 2000 05:35 Subject: Re: [BLML] Now about Maastricht appeal 14 > At 8:24 PM -0400 9/19/00, Kojak wrote: > >Does anyone want to discuss the TD decision? > > As I told you in Maastricht I thought the TD decisions were > excellent, the best I can remember, and certainly better than the > committee decisions. > > >For anyone remotely interested I have looked over the 21 decisions of the > >Appeals Committee in Maastricht. > > > >The ACs upheld the TD on 11 decisions. > >The AC changed 4 decisions with minor impact on the result. (Usually 12C3). > >The AC blew it on 3 decisions #12, 14, and the most infamous #19, and the > >TDs got it wrong on #21. Anyone want to argue with my thoughts? > > I compiled my own list before looking at yours. I put the decisions > into 4 categories: > > Good > Poor > Close / Had to be there > 12C3 > +=+ See the attached note, if you can make time for it :-)) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ------=_NextPart_000_0033_01C02304.45CBCF40 Content-Type: text/plain; name="Poor.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Poor.txt" "Poor" I read the emails by Kojak and Adam Wildawsky with some disappointment. It is not that I fail to recognize their view that some of the appeals decisions in Maastricht were sub-standard, although I have no wish to express any personal thoughts on the subject. What disappoints me is that merely to designate appeals decisions as 'good', 'poor' and so on, is not constructive and does nothing to help me in the current task of drafting for the consideration of the quadruplets the material for the 'Jurisprudence'. There are a number of points I should make. The first is that we are where we are. The Code of Practice exists and no part of the WBF's present policy is to change it. What we have to do is to help Directors and appeals committee members ingrained with the philosophies of their domestic regimes to come to terms with the WBF policy and approach. Impatience is unhelpful. It is not the case that anyone can expect people to eliminate their former attitudes and thought processes overnight, to suppose it might happen is not realistic. What should be recognized is that we have a learning curve to negotiate and despite the scepticism in current emails I do have the evidence that the effort is being made. It would be invidious to name names, but I can say categorically that more than one committee member who is not a supporter of 12C3, for example, is making loyal efforts to assist in the pursuit of the adopted policy. Since it is the policy people who now sound off about it are taking their eyes off the ball. For the purposes of the Jurisprudence I simply delete their remarks on the question because they are irrelevant to the task. One can remark, however, that the international Directors have done well in handling 12C3 and all the evidence is that it has received a high level of acceptance amongst players in international tournaments. A constructive critique of an appeal process and outcome should examine the summary provided by the report and should say plainly what it finds inconsistent in the decisions in relation to the facts on which they are based - the facts as established by the committee, especially if these differ in any matter of substance from the determination of facts by the Director. It is the case that the committee will sometimes find it necessary to form an opinion of the credibility of the players; this usually means that each committee member observes and listens to the player and forms an opinion on the point. No appeal report will ever convey what there was to be learnt from the deportment of the witness or the way in which the individual responses of members are composed into a committee opinion. The other area in which the committee may find differently from the Director is judgemental. Having the same facts as the Director the committee may judge that they should modify the award made by the Director because they make a different bridge assessment or have a different view of the equity. That is the committee's prerogative and Directors serve themselves ill if they appear to resent such modifications. The CoP sets out to reduce the number of occasions when players will feel they are not getting justice; it does so by giving the Directors additional discretion, by requiring them to seek advice before they make any but 'book' rulings, and by making these changes known amongst the players. But it is not the intention of the CoP, nor of the WBF, to remove from players the right to test a ruling when they believe it is truly open to question. So what I would ask is that criticisms of the actions of appeals committees should say clearly how it is suggested the committee has not conformed to its remit or how it has failed properly to diagnose and redress, in relation to its given task and the intentions of the CoP. I also ask that we deploy argument within the current terms of reference. In this way I shall be helped in my quest for constructive opinions that can assist the progress of the new order. Finally one piece of information: on the last day of Maastricht the WBF General Counsel handed me his Advice that the standard of evidence on which appeals committees should make their decisions, and in particular on which they should vary the ruling of the Director, is that the evidence should be 'clear and convincing'; the requirement should not be 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' nor should a decision be based upon the 'balance of probabilities'. Grattan Endicott Wednesday, 20 September 2000. ------=_NextPart_000_0033_01C02304.45CBCF40-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 20 22:38:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8KCc6d23676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 22:38:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8KCbwt23671 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 22:37:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-215.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.215]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA23059 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 14:37:52 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39C8A315.B46BE74E@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 13:44:21 +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] Now about Maastricht appeal 14 References: <200009191803.OAA12557@cfa183.harvard.edu> <000c01c02291$7d707c20$f05408c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan speaks in riddles again : Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > We seem to be in the area of 'consequent' > and 'subsequent', an aspect little to the fore > in ACs since August 1998 when the WBFLC > settled that "an advantage gained by an > offender (see Law 72B1), provided it is > related to the infraction and not obtained > solely by the good play of the offenders, shall > be construed as an advantage in the table > score whether consequent or subsequent > to the infraction" ~ Grattan ~ +=+. > Please in plain English, Grattan, do you believe this decision to be incorrect ? There is an advantage, it is related to the infraction. It is subsequent, not consequent. Do you believe there should have been an adjustment ? -- 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 Sep 20 22:38:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8KCbrW23665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 22:37:53 +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 e8KCbkt23659 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 22:37:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-215.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.215]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA22962 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 14:37:40 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39C8A0D4.A8F59AF0@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 13:34:44 +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] BSC - more References: <3.0.1.32.20000914235644.01402c90@pop.mindspring.com><4.3.2.7.1.20000918082315.00ab42f0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20000918153013.00b3c100@127.0.0.1> <014f01c021be$8f509660$576560cb@laptop> <200009191931.PAA18456@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: > > > [1] But don't tell me the system proliferation is what's keeping > the younger, especially the junior, members out of the game. > You're talking to someone who, after explaining that "anything > is legal in my club. Just have a defence for the opponents" > had to defend against a 4C opener that meant > "LHO, would you like to spend the night with me, after the game?" > (No, I will not say if the opening actually came up at my table, nor > what my answer was or would have been.) > Presumably the proposed defence thay gave the opponents included "double means yes". -- 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 Sep 20 22:38:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8KCbv123670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 22:37:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8KCbot23664 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 22:37:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-215.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.215]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA23001 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 14:37:44 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39C8A21E.65C1D28E@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 13:40:14 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] A question on Maastricht Appeal#2 References: <003901c021f8$13ad3ba0$81e236cb@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: > >She actually has both majors..... > > She has 3-3- in the majors. If someone says that they have > both majors and turns up with 3-3, partner not having shown > any majors, I would be most surprised, feeling misled. > That's just my view, it doesn't have to be everyone else's view. > Pardon me for explaining a system to you that might well be more familiar to you than to me, but after the pass, forcing redouble, 2Cl actually showed clubs and a major. So partner with 3352 chose to go for the major, where she knew a 4-3 fit to exist. She did not need to show her diamonds, and in her mind did not. Now perhaps south did have a better view of the system, realizing that the auction did show precisely a 3352, since why else would she bid that way? As I said, a difficult case. > >It was a difficult case. > > True. Possibly made even more difficult if the players' English > was limited. Many of the more doubtful (or confusing) appeals > at Maastricht and Lille were from matches between two countries > for which English is not the mother tongue. At the PABF events > (in the Far East) appeals have language problems too. I don't > know if anyone else considers that this is a problem for ACs nor > know if there is a solution. > Please don't forget that English is not the native language of the Danes either ! > My view is that the Indonesians lost the appeal partly because > the Director had already ruled their way, so there was not much > need for them to present their case, relative to the situation > where they are the appellants and thus have to present a case. > As a result, I think their case was understated and certain lines > of thought may have been omitted so that a marginal decision > went decidedly the inferior way. > Read the write-up again to see why they lost the appeal. > Then again, I may be behind the times. The only three AC > decisions which I don't much like (#14, #18 and #19) all are > doubtful cases where I would have followed the traditional > method of ruling in favour of the non-offending side, whereas > the three ACs appear to have tried to follow the newer approach > of ruling as equitably as possible without the tendency to favour > the NOs in doubtful cases. > That is indeed the task of the AC, and the TD. > By the way, I didn't find any misprints in HdW's write-ups. > Thank you. > Peter Gill. > Australia. > -- 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 Sep 20 23:51:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8KDoMj24012 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 23:50:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8KDoBt24005 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 23:50:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from p2cs09a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.121.45] helo=pacific) by cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13bkEq-0005kU-00; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 14:48:40 +0100 Message-ID: <004f01c02309$43b09e20$b1a793c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <3.0.1.32.20000914235644.01402c90@pop.mindspring.com><4.3.2.7.1.20000918082315.00ab42f0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20000918153013.00b3c100@127.0.0.1> <014f01c021be$8f509660$576560cb@laptop> <200009191931.PAA18456@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <39C8A0D4.A8F59AF0@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 14:45:59 +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 5.00.2314.1300 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: 20 September 2000 12:34 Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more > Michael Farebrother wrote: > > > > > > [1] But don't tell me the system proliferation is what's keeping > > the younger, especially the junior, members out of the game. > > You're talking to someone who, after explaining that "anything > > is legal in my club. Just have a defence for the opponents" > > had to defend against a 4C opener that meant > > "LHO, would you like to spend the night with me, after the game?" > > (No, I will not say if the opening actually came up at my table, nor > > what my answer was or would have been.) > > > > Presumably the proposed defence thay gave the opponents > included "double means yes". > +=+ The opener may have constituted a pass out of turn? +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 20 23:51:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8KDoMc24013 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 23:50:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8KDoBt24004 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 23:50:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from p2cs09a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.121.45] helo=pacific) by cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13bkEp-0005kU-00; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 14:48:39 +0100 Message-ID: <004e01c02309$42f7fc80$b1a793c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <200009191803.OAA12557@cfa183.harvard.edu> <000c01c02291$7d707c20$f05408c3@dodona> <39C8A315.B46BE74E@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Now about Maastricht appeal 14 Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 14:38:46 +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: Bridge Laws Sent: 20 September 2000 12:44 Subject: Re: [BLML] Now about Maastricht appeal 14 > Grattan speaks in riddles again : > > > Please in plain English, Grattan, do you believe this > decision to be incorrect ? > There is an advantage, it is related to the infraction. > It is subsequent, not consequent. > +=+ I am not inclined to second guess the AC. Presumably they had access to guidance from the Director as to the Law and their decision was taken in the light of it? What basis have I for suggesting they are wrong, or for patronising them by saying they were right? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 21 00:13:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8KED6l24120 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 00:13:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r17.mx.aol.com (imo-r17.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8KED0t24116 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 00:13:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.15.) id f.91.c45c3c (4245); Wed, 20 Sep 2000 10:12:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <91.c45c3c.26fa1fd9@aol.com> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 10:12:41 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] Now about Maastricht appeal 14 To: gester@globalnet.co.uk, adam@tameware.com CC: 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 looking at the text of "at 8:24 PM Kojak wrote:" I find a sentence that is not mine. "As I told you in Maastricht I thought the TD decisions were excellent, the best I can remember, and certainly better than the committee decisions." I can't find me saying that in my copy of sent mail, nor can I imagine my voicing such an opinion. I am not trying to compare decisions of TDs to those of Appeals Committees. Also, I have not used "Poor" or "good" as a description. I am concerned by the lack of procedural approach dictated by the Code of Practice that was evident in the Appeals Committee proceedings I attended. In only rare cases was the vital question asked of the appellant -- "Why do you think the TD decision should be changed?" If my frustration with the rapidity of change in procedure is harmful, then I apologize for that, but I had a discouraging feeling of deja vu in most of the committees I attended. I accept that you see progress and that the changes are occuring. I think where we, the TDs, did not do the best job was in presentations to the AC. To only state the ruling and get agreement on the facts without further advocacy and detailed explanation of the application of relevant Law does not help to keep the process on track. When it comes to the rulings of the TDs under the Code of Practice, I stand proud. We understood what was intended, we applied it to the best of our abilities, and there were many rulings that would have been "appealed" under the old system of automatically ruling against the infractor. The consultation process was vital to our decisions where bridge judgement was involved. The TDs and for the most part the players at this level (WBF) seem to be aboard the train. I wish I could feel the same way about all the ACs, but old habits are hard to break. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 21 00:25:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8KEPIr24178 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 00:25:18 +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 e8KEOht24172 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 00:24:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13bjWN-000G2K-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 13:02:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 13:31:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Merry-go-round References: <4A256949.0081EBE7.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <3.0.6.32.20000829125308.008e4350@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000829125308.008e4350@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 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. Are you suggesting that I may not play a different defence against a strong NT as against a weak NT? Where on earth does that rule come from? -- 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 Sep 21 00:35:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8KEZQR24243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 00:35:26 +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 e8KEPPt24180 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 00:25:33 +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 13bjWN-000G2J-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 13:02:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 13:27:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] What takes precidence References: <003401c00fac$d76536a0$555337d2@oemcomputer> <3.0.6.32.20000828133410.00812ce0@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000828133410.00812ce0@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 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. No, why? >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. It is under the Laws. Are you suggesting we ignore the Laws when we use BBs and not when we use written bidding? >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. The only questions are whether there was a pause for thought, which there was apparently not [TDs are generous in this decision], and whether the call was inadvertent. Transfers and other things have nothing to do with the latter decision. That is a judgement matter for 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 Thu Sep 21 01:23:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8KFMvo24481 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 01:22:57 +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-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 e8KFMMt24477 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 01:22:26 +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 13blhF-00098D-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 16:22:07 +0100 Message-ID: <$2IR9oBWPNy5Ew4N@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 16:12:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal References: <002301c021b8$6b45a7c0$fd01bc18@downstairs> In-Reply-To: <002301c021b8$6b45a7c0$fd01bc18@downstairs> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <002301c021b8$6b45a7c0$fd01bc18@downstairs>, Art Brodsky writes >Hi, I've been a regular lurker for years. My cat, Ralph and dog, Norton >both show great respect for the laws. Miaouw! Nice to see you. >This hand came up in the Long Island NAOP Flight B Unit Final: > > > S 96 >Dlr E H A63 >Vl EW D 9765 > C QT84 > >S KT2 S 43 >H T984 H KJ72 >D Q32 D A8 >C 652 C AKJ73 > > S AQJ875 > H Q5 > D KJT4 > C 9 > > >N E S W >_ 1C* 2H% P& >2S# 3C 3S AP > >Result: 3S-1: NS -50 > >*: Artificial, forcing, 16+ hcp >%: Spades or minors (as would 1H, only more so) >&: < 8 hcp >#: Semi-forced > >West's pass was preceded by 1 minute of tortured questioning. When play >concluded, NS called the director who rolled the auction back to 2S and +110 >for NS. EW appealed. The committee of three (of which I was the only >dissenter) overturned the director's ruling, claiming that pass was not a LA >with the east hand. The other AC members are among LI's best and regularly >play forcing club systems. I do not. Am I missing something? Good decision that 3C should be disallowed - what happens next is not so clear. Others have considered this. -- 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 Thu Sep 21 01:23:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8KFNm224492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 01:23:49 +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-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 e8KFNbt24488 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 01:23:38 +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 13blh3-00098D-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 16:21:55 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 15:54:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Lightner strikes References: <001701c0140b$20e2bca0$c208ff3e@vnmvhhid> <200009011440.e81EeMB01875@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> In-Reply-To: <200009011440.e81EeMB01875@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ron Johnson wrote: >Is Lightner *really* alertable in the EBU? Yes. > I mean does it say so in >black and white? Yes. > If so, do players know this? Yes. [s] >Acting as WBF President, Wolff reformed the committee as a Tournament >Committee and moved that a Lightener Double specifically should be >added to the list of un-alertable conventions. The committee agreed >and the Conditions of Contest were so ammended. Very reasonable, but clearly wrong under EBU alerting regs. Our alerting is meant to be simple rather than efficient. All conventions are alertable. -- 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 Sep 21 01:26:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8KFQMZ24510 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 01:26:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8KFQ2t24501 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 01:26:02 +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 13blkm-0008so-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 15:25:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 03:00:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more References: <200009181538.LAA16733@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> In-Reply-To: <200009181538.LAA16733@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <200009181538.LAA16733@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>, Michael Farebrother writes >On 18 September 2000 at 12:58, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >> >>Steve Willner asked: >> >>"What are the Brown Sticker rules for responses?" >> >>A description of a conventional response which ought to be Brown Sticker: >> >>1. The convention has an unfairly wide range, from a Yarborough to slam >>values. >> >>2. The convention promises neither an anchor suit, nor any particular >>shape. >> >>I suggest that not only should this conventional response be classified as >>BSC, but also any system incorporating this convention be defined as a HUM. >> >>Even the name of this convention is a psyche - "Simple" Stayman. >> >Ah, but Simple Stayman does not include "Garbage" or "Crawling" Stayman, >and by definition implies an invitational hand. At least that's the way >it's taught in our beginner classes. > Only because you teach Strong NT. In the UK one of the first examples given for the use of Stayman is xxxx xxxx xxxxx -, in order to kill the notion that one needs any points at all to use it. -- John (MadDog) Probst -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 21 01:26:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8KFQLL24509 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 01:26:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8KFQ2t24502 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 01:26:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13blkm-0008sp-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 15:25:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 03:03:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Hurricane Gordon (fierce) References: <000201c02121$77e4e1e0$695908c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <000201c02121$77e4e1e0$695908c3@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 <000201c02121$77e4e1e0$695908c3@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicottnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn >" Write the vision and make it plain upon the tables" > - Habakkuk >uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu > >+=+ Those who know that Kojak lives in Tampa, >Florida, will hear with some anxiety that Hurricane >Gordon is moving into Florida just about now and >precisely in the area of Tampa. Wish him and his >safe and his property secure. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >-- If I were Gordon I'd keep well clear of Kojak -- John (MadDog) Probst -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 21 01:27:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8KFRWt24527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 01:27:32 +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 e8KFM7t24475 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 01:22:07 +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 13blh3-00098E-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 16:21:55 +0100 Message-ID: <8m+RZNBPFNy5Ew4l@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 16:01:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Lightner strikes References: <3.0.6.32.20000904141531.00881100@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000904141531.00881100@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 : there was a similar case in Albuquerque, if I remember well. The AC >was very harsh on the appelants. > >1) If N/S are competent, thzey should know most players use either Lightner >or "two-way Lightner", which one could define as "They have bid plums. Lead >a plum. Either it is necessary or they are down in any case.". >2) So, N/S failed to protect themselves. >3) If Lightner is alertable, assign a small PP on E/W for failure to alert >(they might have ignored it was alertable, since it is not in some countries). >4) In any case, result stands. I agree with the conclusion, but not the reasoning. When you apply the Laws of the game you do so with the Regulations as well - there is a Law that says that, L80E or something. The arguments of many people in this thread are based on what happens with different regs. Whenever we discuss something that depends on regs please try to keep within the relevant regs. The alertability of a call in another country that 80% of Englishmen have never heard of is really irrelevant. I still remember the poor bloke in NZ who asked an alerting question on RGB - and got told by several different people what and why the ACBL had laid down. -- 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 Sep 21 01:53:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8KFr4u24564 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 01:53:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8KFqwt24560 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 01:52:58 +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 RAA14682; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:51:15 +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 RAA06392; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:52:25 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000920180237.00871100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 18:02:37 +0200 To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] What takes precidence In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000828133410.00812ce0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <003401c00fac$d76536a0$555337d2@oemcomputer> <3.0.6.32.20000828133410.00812ce0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 13:27 20/09/00 +0100, you wrote: >>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. > > It is under the Laws. Are you suggesting we ignore the Laws when we >use BBs and not when we use written bidding? AG : I'm merely suggesting that, in all good faith, the NOS and OS will respectively feel the was and wasn't a pause, so that evidence would not be deducible. I give more credit to the verisimilitude of the bidding. For example, a player puts 1H on the table, but RHO has bid. a) RHO has opened 1S. The player has a solid minor and stoppers. He replaces 1H with 3NT. I rule that he pulled out the wrong card (who on earth would bid 1H on such a hand ? And the 1H card is at the place where 3NT is on other BBs) b) RHO has opened 1NT. The player has long hearts. He replaces 1H with 2D, playing transfers. I rule that he saw the 1NT bid too late, so he changed his mind between the two bids, even if the pause is unnoticed. The fact that the opponents did or didn't see a pause will not influence me. If I'm wrong in doing this, I'm happy to be. Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 21 02:01:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8KG1W924591 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 02:01:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8KG0St24586 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 02:00:29 +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 13bjWN-000G2J-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 13:02:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 13:27:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] What takes precidence References: <003401c00fac$d76536a0$555337d2@oemcomputer> <3.0.6.32.20000828133410.00812ce0@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000828133410.00812ce0@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 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. No, why? >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. It is under the Laws. Are you suggesting we ignore the Laws when we use BBs and not when we use written bidding? >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. The only questions are whether there was a pause for thought, which there was apparently not [TDs are generous in this decision], and whether the call was inadvertent. Transfers and other things have nothing to do with the latter decision. That is a judgement matter for 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 Thu Sep 21 02:47:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8KGkmB24651 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 02:46:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.143]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8KGkdt24647 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 02:46:40 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e8KGkSU16338 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 12:46:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200009201646.e8KGkSU16338@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 12:46:28 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <200009182314.QAA08376@mailhub.irvine.com> from "Adam Beneschan" at Sep 18, 2000 04:14:56 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 Well, I respectfully disagree. This occurred in the US in the ACBL domain and despite what our neighbors across the pond think about the atrocity of ACBL law interpretation, in the ACBL, it is not ethical or encouraged to ask questions unless it has a direct bearing on your action. Since the E/W have a clear agreement about what W should bid (Pass was alerted as showing <8 HCP, hence it should be considered that any other bid would show something else), the questions could *NOT* have affected West's bids and hence were out-of-line. If at West's *SECOND* turn to bid in passout over 2S, (s)he then asked his/her questions, it would be different, but then there wouldn't be UI for East to act on. As mentioned before, a likely scenario is that East should pass and after South's pass, West would have to reconsider and take some sort of takeout action. Presumably X or 2NT are takeouts (or possibly both with slightly different nuances, as some play) but with 4333, it isn't clear that West will take an action. Personally, since the repercussions are not clear, I would probably assign A+/A- on the board. Back on the original topic, PASS is most definitely a LA and I do think that West's questioning suggests that taking a non-pass call instead of a pass is suggested. Hence I think that 3C should not be allowed. -Ted. > Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 16:14:56 PDT > From: Adam Beneschan > > On the other hand, it isn't clear to me that the questioning suggests > taking action over passing. First of all, I'd have to know just what > is meant by "1 minute of tortured questioning"... what questions did > West ask, and was the torture being caused by North not providing a > clear explanation? When N-S use a convention like this, West has a > right to ask what's going on (since they're not in England), and > there's a line between asking questions to find out what system the > opponents are playing, and asking questions that indicate to partner > that you're thinking of alternative actions, or you have some values, > or you have something in one of the suits they say they have, etc.... > I'd need more information about what actually transpired at the table > in order to determine whether the UI suggested a non-pass---an element > that must be present in order for the Director to roll back the > contract. > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 21 02:48:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8KGm7M24668 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 02:48:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8KGm1t24661 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 02:48:01 +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 JAA23031; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 09:47:55 -0700 Message-Id: <200009201647.JAA23031@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 20 Sep 2000 03:00:36 PDT." Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 09:47:54 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [Richard Hills:] > >>Even the name of this convention is a psyche - "Simple" Stayman. Even without the "Simple" part, the name of the convention is a psyche, because it assumes that it was invented by someone named Stayman, which of course it wasn't. (The inventor was Rapee', with Marx independently inventing about the same thing if my information is correct.) [Michael Farebrother:] > >Ah, but Simple Stayman does not include "Garbage" or "Crawling" Stayman, > >and by definition implies an invitational hand. At least that's the way > >it's taught in our beginner classes. [John Probst:] > Only because you teach Strong NT. In the UK one of the first examples > given for the use of Stayman is xxxx xxxx xxxxx -, in order to kill the > notion that one needs any points at all to use it. I think you're both partly wrong. I've always learned that Stayman can be used on a hand with no points, if one is planning on passing any response (2D, 2H, or 2S). This is part of "Simple Stayman". I also learned that using Stayman implies *at* *least* an invitational hand *unless* one is planning on passing any response. And I live in the US and learned strong notrump. The example John gives has nothing to do with strong vs. weak notrump or US vs. UK or whether one puts redundant U's in words like "color" and "honor". It works here too, although I have no idea whether it is taught in beginner classes. "Garbage" or "Crawling" Stayman (as I've seen those terms used) is something different altogether. Here, you can use it with a weak hand and both majors, without diamonds, planning to correct 2D to 2H to show this hand, and planning to pass 2H or 2S. (Using Garbage Stayman implies you have to use another method to show invitational 4=5=x=x hands, usually transferring to hearts and rebidding 2S.) -- 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 Sep 21 03:11:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8KHBL424755 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 03:11:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 e8KH8St24722 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 03:08:29 +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 13bnLh-000K3o-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 18:07:58 +0100 Message-ID: <8MgKXSBrZOy5EwKz@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:31:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more References: <014f01c021be$8f509660$576560cb@laptop> <3.0.1.32.20000914235644.01402c90@pop.mindspring.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000918082315.00ab42f0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20000918153013.00b3c100@127.0.0.1> <014f01c021be$8f509660$576560cb@laptop> <200009191931.PAA18456@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <3.0.1.32.20000919155247.0141a498@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000919155247.0141a498@pop.mindspring.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 <3.0.1.32.20000919155247.0141a498@pop.mindspring.com>, Michael S. Dennis writes >At 03:31 PM 9/19/2000 -0400, Michael wrote: >>[1] But don't tell me the system proliferation is what's keeping >>the younger, especially the junior, members out of the game. >>You're talking to someone who, after explaining that "anything >>is legal in my club. Just have a defence for the opponents" >>had to defend against a 4C opener that meant >>"LHO, would you like to spend the night with me, after the game?" >>(No, I will not say if the opening actually came up at my table, nor >>what my answer was or would have been.) > >Indeed, it would have been indiscreet of you to go into too much detail >about what came up at your table in reaction to such a question. I think all calls over 4C should be "No acquiescence/No concessions" rather than "no agreement" -- John (MadDog) Probst -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 21 03:45:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8KHjD124801 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 03:45:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8KHj2t24797 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 03:45:07 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e8KHjGH23011 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 13:45:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200009201745.e8KHjGH23011@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Lightner strikes To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 13:45:03 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at Sep 20, 2000 03:54:41 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 David Stevenson writes: > > Ron Johnson wrote: > > >Is Lightner *really* alertable in the EBU? > > Yes. > > > I mean does it say so in > >black and white? > > Yes. > > > If so, do players know this? > > Yes. I suggest that this case shows that this is not so. Like there is an alert system that every player (or even every experienced player) knows cold. I guess this is nitpicking. > > [s] > > >Acting as WBF President, Wolff reformed the committee as a Tournament > >Committee and moved that a Lightener Double specifically should be > >added to the list of un-alertable conventions. The committee agreed > >and the Conditions of Contest were so ammended. > > Very reasonable, but clearly wrong under EBU alerting regs. Our > alerting is meant to be simple rather than efficient. All conventions > are alertable. I wonder if it does work out as being simple. In practical term you are going to require any pair that knows what Lightner is to protect themselves. (I guess I shouldn't make assumptions, but the EBU TDs that responded seem to have taken this view.) And I'd be surprised if you advocated a PP for failure to alert here -- provided you were satisfied that the non-alert was in good faith (IE that the player did not know Lightner was alertable) Oh well, I guess every alert system has its odd points. -- 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 Sep 21 03:47:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8KHlJ924816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 03:47:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8KHl8t24812 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 03:47:09 +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 NAA12464 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 13:49:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200009201749.NAA12464@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <39C8A0D4.A8F59AF0@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.1.32.20000914235644.01402c90@pop.mindspring.com><4.3.2.7.1.20000918082315.00ab42f0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20000918153013.00b3c100@127.0.0.1> <014f01c021be$8f509660$576560cb@laptop> <200009191931.PAA18456@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <39C8A0D4.A8F59AF0@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 13:49:30 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 20 September 2000 at 13:34, Herman De Wael wrote: >Michael Farebrother wrote: >> >> [1] But don't tell me the system proliferation is what's keeping >> the younger, especially the junior, members out of the game. >> You're talking to someone who, after explaining that "anything >> is legal in my club. Just have a defence for the opponents" >> had to defend against a 4C opener that meant >> "LHO, would you like to spend the night with me, after the game?" >> (No, I will not say if the opening actually came up at my table, nor >> what my answer was or would have been.) >> >Presumably the proposed defence thay gave the opponents >included "double means yes". Actually, double meant "no". They wanted to have the auction, at least once during the evening, "4C-X-p-p; 4D (RHO?)-p-p-X; 4H (partner?)-X-XX (NO!)..." At least, that's what they told me. Probably, double = yes would have been better bridge. 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 Sep 21 04:13:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8KIDIZ24850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 04:13:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8KIDCt24846 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 04:13:13 +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 LAA24757; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 11:13:04 -0700 Message-Id: <200009201813.LAA24757@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 20 Sep 2000 12:46:28 PDT." <200009201646.e8KGkSU16338@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 11:13:04 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ted Ying wrote: > Well, I respectfully disagree. This occurred in the US in > the ACBL domain and despite what our neighbors across the > pond think about the atrocity of ACBL law interpretation, > in the ACBL, it is not ethical or encouraged to ask questions > unless it has a direct bearing on your action. Where does this information come from? Nothing in the Laws says it's unethical to ask a question that has no direct bearing on your action. Nor, to my recollection, have I ever seen anything in WBFLC minutes to this effect. I can't find anywhere in ACBL published material that discourages, or suggests that it's unethical, to ask a question that has no bearing on your action. The EBU *does* say something like this (according to what I've heard), but I don't believe the ACBL does. Perhaps we should write to Gary Blaiss or Mike Flader or some other ACBL bigwig to get a more official answer on this, but I believe they would say that a question in this situation is entirely proper and ethical. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? If you ask questions only when it may have an effect, then you give UI to partner any time you ask a question, and you also give UI to partner when you don't ask a question. But if you ask for information whenever an opponent makes an alerted bid, you don't give any information at all to your partner. (Or to the opponents.) So how can that be unethical? Plus, if you're asking for information and you get a half-baked answer, I believe you have the right to follow up until you get something reasonable. Of course, if the opponents give you a proper answer and you still follow up with a bunch of questions, that's another matter entirely. (The post on r.g.b indicated that the latter was the case.) > Since the E/W have a clear agreement about what W should bid (Pass > was alerted as showing <8 HCP, hence it should be considered > that any other bid would show something else), the questions > could *NOT* have affected West's bids and hence were out-of-line. > If at West's *SECOND* turn to bid in passout over 2S, (s)he then > asked his/her questions, it would be different, but then there > wouldn't be UI for East to act on. No, you have it backwards. If West had asked at his first turn, the only information he would be providing is that he didn't know what system the opponents were playing. When West waits until his second turn to ask, he's telling the whole world that his reopening action depended on the meaning of the opponents' call (else why wouldn't he ask immediately after the Alert)? > As mentioned before, a likely scenario is that East should pass > and after South's pass, West would have to reconsider and take > some sort of takeout action. Presumably X or 2NT are takeouts > (or possibly both with slightly different nuances, as some play) > but with 4333, it isn't clear that West will take an action. > Personally, since the repercussions are not clear, I would > probably assign A+/A- on the board. Now *that* (the A+/A-) is more likely to get our neighbo(u)rs across the pond complaining about the atrocity of our rulings. > Back on the original topic, PASS is most definitely a LA and I > do think that West's questioning suggests that taking a non-pass > call instead of a pass is suggested. Hence I think that 3C should > not be allowed. As I discussed on r.g.b, if opener's pass were in the pass-out seat, I think it would be more clear that the UI suggested a non-pass. In this case, however, because of the transfer, opener's pass wouldn't end the auction; therefore, it's a lot less clear that a non-pass is suggested. -- 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 Sep 21 04:57:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8KIujK24885 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 04:56:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8KIuct24881 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 04:56:39 +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 OAA06475; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 14:56:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA007946193; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 14:56:33 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 14:56:32 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: RE: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA To: adam@irvine.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -Objet : Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal Adam wrote: >I can't find anywhere in ACBL published material that discourages, or >suggests that it's unethical, to ask a question that has no bearing on >your action. The EBU *does* say something like this (according to >what I've heard), but I don't believe the ACBL does. Perhaps we >should write to Gary Blaiss or Mike Flader or some other ACBL bigwig >to get a more official answer on this, but I believe they would say >that a question in this situation is entirely proper and ethical. Do >you have any evidence to the contrary? _____________________________________________________________________ I have read on this in ACBL Bulletin some years ago and wrote something similar in our local bulletin afterwards but cannot find the exact ACBL Bulletin citation. The case I remember is this one: N E S W 2C P 2D P 2S P 3C! P(Q) 3NT S alerted 3C. Then W asked about the meaning(at his turn and before passing) and was told it "is a very weak hand, no relation with C. Instead of making the "normal" H lead (10-9-x), E "found" a killing C lead. W having A-x-x took hand and switched to D (down 2). As N, I called TD who allowed 3N making (on any other lead). W had a flat hand and would never bid nor X on 3C. 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 Thu Sep 21 05:12:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8KJCi324906 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 05:12:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.143]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8KJCat24902 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 05:12:37 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e8KJCSD19217 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 15:12:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200009201912.e8KJCSD19217@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 15:12:28 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <200009201813.LAA24757@mailhub.irvine.com> from "Adam Beneschan" at Sep 20, 2000 11:13:04 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 > Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 11:13:04 PDT > From: Adam Beneschan > > Ted Ying wrote: > > > Well, I respectfully disagree. This occurred in the US in > > the ACBL domain and despite what our neighbors across the > > pond think about the atrocity of ACBL law interpretation, > > in the ACBL, it is not ethical or encouraged to ask questions > > unless it has a direct bearing on your action. > > Where does this information come from? > A common (at least on the East coast) interpretation of Law 73.B: B. Inappropriate Communication Between Partners 1. Gratuitous Information Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls or plays are made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, through questions asked or not asked of the opponents or through alerts and explanations given or not given to them. Although not explicit, here, many interpret the "through questions asked or not asked..." to include asking questions that may not influence your bid. If it doesn't affect your bid or action, why ask? It gives partner information...you are not allowed to ask questions for the benefit of partner. In fact, what you are doing is creating a UI problem by asking, unless you ask at your first opportunity in all auctions. > Nothing in the Laws says it's unethical to ask a question that has no > direct bearing on your action. Nor, to my recollection, have I ever > seen anything in WBFLC minutes to this effect. > > I can't find anywhere in ACBL published material that discourages, or > suggests that it's unethical, to ask a question that has no bearing on > your action. The EBU *does* say something like this (according to > what I've heard), but I don't believe the ACBL does. Perhaps we > should write to Gary Blaiss or Mike Flader or some other ACBL bigwig > to get a more official answer on this, but I believe they would say > that a question in this situation is entirely proper and ethical. Do > you have any evidence to the contrary? > > If you ask questions only when it may have an effect, then you give UI > to partner any time you ask a question, and you also give UI to > partner when you don't ask a question. But if you ask for information > whenever an opponent makes an alerted bid, you don't give any > information at all to your partner. (Or to the opponents.) So how > can that be unethical? > If you ask whenever an opponent makes an alerted bid. I'd be surprised if you can find one player in the entire ACBL that does this. It doesn't happen. You have to decide your poison. Personally, I think that asking while it can still influence what partner does or what action partner takes is far worse than the minor implication at passout time whether to balance. Yes, asking at the second opportunity may pass UI that you are considering balancing, but should you pass, it is less likely to affect partner (unless (s)he uses it to defend assuming you have some values). However, as a director of a large regular game, I can tell you that I've had far more problems with UI passed early than late. > Plus, if you're asking for information and you get a half-baked > answer, I believe you have the right to follow up until you get > something reasonable. Of course, if the opponents give you a proper > answer and you still follow up with a bunch of questions, that's > another matter entirely. (The post on r.g.b indicated that the latter > was the case.) > Absolutely...but, what if the answer doesn't matter to you or your subsequent actions? That could become an issue of harassment. There are some players who will take questioning to an extreme limit either to make sure a pair they deem to be playing questionable methods knows their methods or to rules-lawyer at the end to try to get a ruling in their favor. I've seen quite a lot of that. And I think that much of that is harassment and against your active ethics or ZT policy whatever you have locally. > > > Since the E/W have a clear agreement about what W should bid (Pass > > was alerted as showing <8 HCP, hence it should be considered > > that any other bid would show something else), the questions > > could *NOT* have affected West's bids and hence were out-of-line. > > If at West's *SECOND* turn to bid in passout over 2S, (s)he then > > asked his/her questions, it would be different, but then there > > wouldn't be UI for East to act on. > > No, you have it backwards. If West had asked at his first turn, the > only information he would be providing is that he didn't know what > system the opponents were playing. When West waits until his second > turn to ask, he's telling the whole world that his reopening action > depended on the meaning of the opponents' call (else why wouldn't he > ask immediately after the Alert)? > Um...no. I don't agree. Asking at the first opportunity, unless you are very strict about asking at *ALL* alerted bids whether you have a good or bad hand tends to imply some consideration for bidding. It tends to lead players like the 1C bidder to bid based on UI situations more often than not. I direct a game with about 60-70 tables a week and have been for most of the last 6 years and I'd say that the influence of questions like that is extremely prevalent and common. I have multiple director calls for situations like this one every week. Very few players, even the more regimented of the masses, ask at all opportunities. The consequence is that either the partner bends over backwards to avoid using the UI or uses the UI (depending on the partner). It often ends up messy. If the bidder waits until the second opportunity, then at least the partner is not affected unless it influences the defense and if you actually balance, the implications are not as many or manifold as passing out. > > As mentioned before, a likely scenario is that East should pass > > and after South's pass, West would have to reconsider and take > > some sort of takeout action. Presumably X or 2NT are takeouts > > (or possibly both with slightly different nuances, as some play) > > but with 4333, it isn't clear that West will take an action. > > Personally, since the repercussions are not clear, I would > > probably assign A+/A- on the board. > > Now *that* (the A+/A-) is more likely to get our neighbo(u)rs across > the pond complaining about the atrocity of our rulings. > Only in the event of the questions and the very questionable 3C call. Had the hand been 6421 as someone else suggested, I would agree that there was no merit in a penalty or even a director call. Only when a borderline or worse (in this case I don't even think the call is borderline, just bad and inappropriate in light of the UI) call is made, would the penalty be assessed. In this case, I think the 3C bid was made in response to the UI...that's a penalty to me. > > Back on the original topic, PASS is most definitely a LA and I > > do think that West's questioning suggests that taking a non-pass > > call instead of a pass is suggested. Hence I think that 3C should > > not be allowed. > > As I discussed on r.g.b, if opener's pass were in the pass-out seat, I > think it would be more clear that the UI suggested a non-pass. In > this case, however, because of the transfer, opener's pass wouldn't > end the auction; therefore, it's a lot less clear that a non-pass is > suggested. > And I think the nature of the questions at the time suggested very directly that non-pass would be advantageous to a pass call. -Ted. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 21 06:45:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8KKjCn24980 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 06:45:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8KKimt24959 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 06:44:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13bqjS-000Mym-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 20:44:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 20:59:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Now about Maastricht appeal 14 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 Kojak wrote: >Beautiful desfenc(s)e by Gratan for the Committee. Hardly rebuttable. Does >anyone want to discuss the TD decision? Or is the concept still that the TD >decision is just an interim step while the greater muck-de-mucks of the >committee are the only ones who can really arrive at the correct decision? >Vuva ACBL's attitude that when yhou go to committee the TDdecision does not >count. What happened to the Code of Practice idea that the TD decision would >prevail unless the AC overwhelmingly found it to be wrong? Well, without going in to detail of discussions, on ACs where I was present, the TD ruling was always the starting point, and in at least one case the ending point: the write-up basically says that without any reason to disagree with the TD the AC would not. >I seriously don't think that the bridge administrators are ready to accept >the Code of Practice for Appeals Committees. I feel that they are saying, >"yeah, go ahead and do what you want, but when it comes to us, the old values >(which happen to justify their existence) apply." Ergo -- death of progress. > > For anyone remotely interested I have looked over the 21 decuisions of the >Appeals Committee in Maastricht. > >The ACs upheld the TD on 11 decisions. >The AC changed 4 decisions with minor impact on the result. (Usually 12C3). >The AC blew it on 3 decisions #12, 14, and the most infamous #19, and the >TDs got it wrong on #21. Anyone want to argue with my thoughts? Yes. I don't think that the statistics prove [or necessarily even suggest] that the ACs did not start at the point that they had been instructed to start at. Of course, you may disagree with their judgement, but I believe the basic methodology was there. I think a move has been made in the direction that you and the WBF want. -- 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 Sep 21 06:45:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8KKjD924981 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 06:45:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8KKikt24954 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 06:44:48 +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 13bqjR-0006LT-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 20:44:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 20:37:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ME or MB) 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 Laval wrote: >Hi all, > >The auction was: > > N E >2D! 3D end > >2D! alerted as Flannery but S opened a "weak 2D". >3D is natural on Flannery. E had 5 good Ds... > >W having 5=5=2=1 decided to P with a good hand, >beeing sure Ss and Hs was behind him. >E-W lost an easy game to 4H. Without the alert, the >most probable auction would be: > > N E S W >2D P P 2S >P 2N P 4H (end) > >Call at the table, the TD looked at CCs. On N's CC it is >written that 2D is weak. On S's CC, Flannery is clearly there. >New partnership. N said he was sure the agreement >was "weak 2D". S was convinced they play Flannery. > >Law 75, example 2: "the Director is presume Mistaken >Explanation, rather than Mistaken bid, in the absence >of evidence of the contrary." > >Does this sentence clearly applies here so that the ruling >should be made according to Mistaken explanation (ME) ? >E-W have a flat 4H and I think more details on board have no >importance. Certainly. The evidence does not strongly suggest a misbid rather than mis-explanation: it could be either, so a mis-explanation is assumed. -- 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 Sep 21 06:45:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8KKj8924976 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 06:45:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8KKiht24946 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 06:44:44 +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 13bqjN-000Mym-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 20:44:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 20:21:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Compulsory Pause over Preempt References: <005701c01d1a$d2c2a260$a0de36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <3.0.1.32.20000913173232.013b1e04@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000913173232.013b1e04@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >At 10:37 AM 9/13/2000 +1000, Peter wrote: >>My brother's AC took only a few seconds to uphold the Director's >>ruling, due to the length of the pause and the nature of the 5H >>bidder's hand. >> >>It took much longer to discuss what to say to the experienced >>player about the phrase on her card. Someone considered an >>approach of "the phrase is meaningless because it doesn't say >>how long the pause is" while someone else thought they should >>tell her that the Laws don't allow the phrase to be written on a CC >>(possibly mentioning that the Laws have been changed several >>times, to reduce the hurt felt by a woman who'd been writing it on >>her CC for decades). >> >>Discussion ensued about whether the practice is illegal? >>Or impractical? Is a pair allowed to maintain two even tempos >>depending on the circumstances (i.e. a bit like playing their own >>personal Stop Cards even when the SO doesn't use Stop Cards)? >>Your thoughts please? > >The practice is not illegal, at least not according to the Laws. Its >practicality and import are less obvious. I think that the general standard >is that the length of a pause should be evaluated in the context of the >auction (i.e., without reference to the actual hand), and that in >particular, a pause of about 8 to 10 seconds would be considered "in tempo" >in this situation, with or without a note to that effect on the convention >card. In fact, a call _without_ pause after a skip bid is potentially as >informative as an excessively long pause. Unless the SO has issued specific >standards against the use of such pauses, then their failure to adopt skip >bid warnings is essentially irrelevant. I don't think this is right. In jurisdictions where mandatory pauses over pre-empts are unknown then the normal pause over a pre-empt with a flat Yarborough is going to be shorter than 8 to 10 seconds, probably closer to 0.5 seconds. Players are not going to delay such pauses to follow some sort of tempo that no-one uses. -- 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 Sep 21 06:45:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8KKjBm24978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 06:45:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8KKiht24948 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 06:44:44 +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 13bqjN-000Myn-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 20:44:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 20:23:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Singing in petto (was : Compulsory Pause over Preempt) References: <005701c01d1a$d2c2a260$a0de36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <200009131809.e8DI92c19386@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> <3.0.6.32.20000914124201.00860ca0@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000914124201.00860ca0@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 14:09 13/09/00 -0400, you wrote: >> >>People are completely hopeless at estimating time -- even as short as 5 >>seconds. Having said that, 5 seconds seems right. Long enough that the >>pause is basically unreadable. > >Try music (not aloud, of course). The tempo of 'Poor old Joe' or 'Kumbaya' >is exactly 1 beat per second, and the latter takes exactly 30 sec a verse. >The moment you've come to the second 'my Lord', 10 seconds have elapsed. If >the opponents took a whole verse to bid, it's too much. > >If you prefer classic, the time for one 'period' (up-then-down melody move) >of the main theme of Smetana's 'Vltava' (the Moldau) is fractionally more >than 10 seconds. Having never heard of any of those, perhaps you could suggest something by Gilbert and Sullivan or the Beatles. -- 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 Sep 21 06:45:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8KKj9t24977 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 06:45:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8KKiht24947 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 06:44:44 +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 13bqjN-000Myl-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 20:44:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 20:04:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Alas, Poor Yorick, I Knew Him Well... References: <019301c018f8$7a256140$32391dc2@rabbit> In-Reply-To: <019301c018f8$7a256140$32391dc2@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: >"Tim West-meads" wrote: >> Surely not. 6-4 (or 7-4) is an excellent holding for a 3rd in hand >> pre-empt and it is impossible to be too weak for a third-in-hand >> pre-empt against vulnerable opponents. (Actually if partner has either >> of these I probably want to be in 3H not 2S). > >I have some example hands. >Please detail with which preempt you would >open them 3rd seat at white (playing weak-twos): >- KQJTx,x,x,QJ9xxx Dependent on my mood, I would open 1C, 3C, 1S, 2S or 3S. >- Axxxxxx,KJxx,void,xx 1S is routine. >- KQTxxx,QJTxx,x,x 1S is routine. >- xxxxxxx,KQJx,x,x I would pass this one! >- KJTxxx,KJTxxx,void,x 1S is routine. The trouble is that this sort of approach is meaningless. Sure, *I* would open all but one, but that proves nothing. The problem with this sort of UI problem is that if there is no UI pd thinks "I have no idea what my stupid partner is up to by bidding 2S and getting doubled, but I shall pass: it is his concern." He does not deduce a poor spade suit because pd has passed. However, with the UI, pd thinks "I know that pd has got it wrong because of his explanation: I am not allowed to use that. However, I know he cannot have a long spade suit anyway so I can safely take it out and it is not because of the explanation." Whenever we get a ruling like this there is always support for allowing it but that is not right. The player has not bent over backwards to avoid using the UI as L73C requires, but has merely thought of a justification. Why did he run to 3D after bidding 2D with 5-4 in the minors? Because he based his bid on UI. At least if he had redoubled or bid 3C we might have believed he was innocent. -- 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 Sep 21 06:45:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8KKjBn24979 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 06:45:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8KKiit24949 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 06:44:45 +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 13bqjN-0002T5-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 20:44:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 20:34:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Compulsory Pause over Preempt References: <200009141432.e8EEW5o13416@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> <200009141544.IAA18541@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200009141544.IAA18541@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: >Ron Johnson wrote: >> Eric Landau writes: >> > To be truly ethical, a player with no problem should act as though >> > he might be considering some other action. He should pause for a >> > length of time which should be the same as what he would normally >> > take if he were giving mild consideration to some other action >> > (which depends on his usual tempo), look at his cards, and >> > generally try to "play act" at thinking about something. > >Sometimes, it works out that I do have something to think about >anyway. in an auction like 1S-2S-4S, if I'm on the 4S bidder's left, >I can think about what I'm going to lead. > >> > In my >> > book, a player who pauses for 5 or 15 seconds while doing this is >> > acting correctly, while a player who pauses for exactly 10 seconds >> > while looking at his watch, or obviously counting time, is acting >> > unethically and improperly. Yet there seem to be an awful lot of >> > folks out there who believe that the latter is not only perfectly >> > acceptable, but precisely what the so-called "10-second rule" >> > requires. >> > >> I don't have much to offer beyond this except to hope that others >> pick this up and run with it. Any governing body that has some kind >> of mandatory pause in their regulations needs to include a note to >> this effect. > >The ACBL already has this in their regulations: > > When RHO has announced a skip bid, the player following the skip > bidder must wait for a suitable interval (about 10 seconds). In > waiting the player's manner must be one that suggests he is an > active participant in the auction (the hand should be studied > during the pause). Any obvious display of disinterest is most > improper. EBU Orange book: 7.1.3 After a jump bid, the next player must pause for about ten seconds before calling. It is an offence either not to pause or to show indifference when pausing. Not so clear, maybe, but still part of the regulation. -- 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 Sep 21 06:45:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8KKj2N24975 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 06:45:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8KKigt24945 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 06:44:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13bqjN-0006LT-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 20:44:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:01:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL policy on agreements after opponents' irregularity References: <200009051414.e85EEgk09155@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> In-Reply-To: <200009051414.e85EEgk09155@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ron Johnson wrote: >richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes: >> >> >> If this auction had happened in ACBL-land, would the TD rule that either >> pard or myself "changed our conventional agreements contingent upon an >> opponent's irregularity"? > >There's an old story about a Stayman/Mitchell auction. They had a >long, very artificial auction and just as they had come to rest in >a thin (but making) slam one of the opponents came in with a *very* >insufficient call (something like a 3C overcall of 6D). I remember the write-up in Bridge Magazine. The 3C was meant as a joke! >The undercall was accepted and the partnership started cue bidding >again -- getting around to showing specific queens and jacks. > >Both of them were on the same page in what *can't* have been a discussed >auction. No discussion of their having an illegal agreement. > >They bid to a substantially better contract and went down when the >trump suit broke very badly. I was called when some visiting Dutch players had the following auction: 1C = 1S = 1NT = 1NT at the Easter Festival in London. The slightly obnoxious player next to speak decided to accept the 1NT bid so the full auction was 1C = 1S = 1NT = 1NT = 2NT = 3NT = = = Naturally this made and I was recalled. I asked the opener why he bid 2NT just to see if there was a problem. "When I bid 1NT and my partner raises but does not bid game I always bid again if I am maximum." Sounded very fair to me. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 21 07:02:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8KL1dV25060 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 07:01:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8KL1Wt25055 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 07:01:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA28512; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 14:01:26 -0700 Message-Id: <200009202101.OAA28512@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 20 Sep 2000 15:12:28 PDT." <200009201912.e8KJCSD19217@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 14:01:27 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ted Ying wrote: > A common (at least on the East coast) interpretation of > Law 73.B: > > B. Inappropriate Communication Between Partners > 1. Gratuitous Information > Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls > or plays are made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, > through questions asked or not asked of the opponents or through > alerts and explanations given or not given to them. > > Although not explicit, here, many interpret the "through questions > asked or not asked..." to include asking questions that may not > influence your bid. Since the law says "asked OR NOT ASKED", why wouldn't they interpret it to include "*not* asking questions that may not influence your bid?" Law 73B1 really doesn't belong in this discussion, anyway. It's clear to me, from context, that this Law is about using gratuitous information to *intentionally* communicate information to partner. A violation of Law 73B1 is a serious violation and is, essentially, cheating. If the East Coasters are using this Law as a basis for saying "you must not ask unless it will affect your bid", they're essentially saying that anyone who asks what the Alert means, immediately after an Alert, is cheating unless the information will affect their next action. If the East Coasters actually believe that everyone who does so is intentionally trying to communicate to their partners---well, maybe they're right about people on the East Coast . . . > If it doesn't affect your bid or action, why ask? > It gives partner information No, it doesn't. The only information it gives is the information that I don't already know what they're playing. > ...you are not allowed to ask > questions for the benefit of partner. This point has nothing to do with the discussion. > In fact, what you are doing > is creating a UI problem by asking, unless you ask at your first > opportunity in all auctions. To me, asking at the first opportunity at all auctions is completely routine. What's the problem? > > If you ask questions only when it may have an effect, then you give UI > > to partner any time you ask a question, and you also give UI to > > partner when you don't ask a question. But if you ask for information > > whenever an opponent makes an alerted bid, you don't give any > > information at all to your partner. (Or to the opponents.) So how > > can that be unethical? > > If you ask whenever an opponent makes an alerted bid. I'd be > surprised if you can find one player in the entire ACBL that > does this. It doesn't happen. Yes, it does happen. I tend to practice this. Actually, I can't say that I ask about every alerted bid, but the cases where I don't fall into one of these categories: (1) I already know what it is from prior experience with these opponents. (2) I've already looked at the convention card. (3) The opponents are obviously going to have the auction all to themselves, so I might as well wait until it's time to lead. (This won't happen until the auction gets up to the third round or so.) (4) I have a positive reason to believe the opponents are likely having a serious misunderstanding. If I'm playing Precision, and my partner opens 1C and RHO makes a call and LHO alerts, I will guarantee to you that (unless I already know what it means, or can figure it out from the CC) I will ask LHO what the call means, completely routinely, without a second thought, without thinking about what's in my hand or what I'm going to do next or anything. I ask what it means, and *then* I look at my hand and figure out what I'm going to do. I guarantee this. Period. Furthermore, I have no reason to believe that players in my area behave substantially differently. Sure, I run into cases where a question seems to indicate that the asker has something worth thinking about, and I run into a few cases where someone seems to be intentionally trying to pass information to partner by asking a question. But I have no reason to believe that those are other than a smallish minority. Most of the time, when we get asked questions, the askers seem to be doing so out of habit, and it doesn't indicate anything about their hand. If it doesn't happen in your area, maybe it's because you're playing amongst a pack of coffeehousers. More likely, it's because the authorities in your area have already spread the notion that you're not supposed to ask questions unless it could affect your next decision. If this notion is prevalent, then it would be obvious that most people would not ask questions about Alerted bids all the time. So you can't use "it doesn't happen" as an argument to justify the prohibition against asking such questions---that would be a circular argument. Or a self-fulfulling prophecy, if you like. > > Plus, if you're asking for information and you get a half-baked > > answer, I believe you have the right to follow up until you get > > something reasonable. Of course, if the opponents give you a proper > > answer and you still follow up with a bunch of questions, that's > > another matter entirely. (The post on r.g.b indicated that the latter > > was the case.) > > Absolutely...but, what if the answer doesn't matter to you > or your subsequent actions? That could become an issue of > harassment. There are some players who will take questioning > to an extreme limit either to make sure a pair they deem to > be playing questionable methods knows their methods or to > rules-lawyer at the end to try to get a ruling in their favor. > I've seen quite a lot of that. And I think that much of that > is harassment and against your active ethics or ZT policy > whatever you have locally. When you ask a question (especially about an Alerted call), the Laws and ACBL policy make it clear that the opponents are supposed to give you a sufficient explanation, so I don't see how the opponents could consider it "harassment" if they give you half an explanation and you follow up. (I already said that follow-up questions after you *do* receive a sufficient explanation are problematic.) > > No, you have it backwards. If West had asked at his first turn, the > > only information he would be providing is that he didn't know what > > system the opponents were playing. When West waits until his second > > turn to ask, he's telling the whole world that his reopening action > > depended on the meaning of the opponents' call (else why wouldn't he > > ask immediately after the Alert)? > > > > Um...no. I don't agree. Asking at the first opportunity, > unless you are very strict about asking at *ALL* alerted > bids whether you have a good or bad hand tends to imply > some consideration for bidding. You seem to be hung up on the premise that routinely asking questions about alerted bids doesn't happen. So it's probable that no further discussion is worthwhile under this condition. Maybe your premise is correct on the East Coast. Out here, I believe it's common (but not universal) to ask about all alerted bids (with some exceptions, as I noted above) without regard to one's hand. (Actually, if your impression is formed from your experience directing, you have to be very careful of statistical bias, since you obviously will personally see a lot more of the cases where questions cause problems than the cases where they don't.) > > > As mentioned before, a likely scenario is that East should pass > > > and after South's pass, West would have to reconsider and take > > > some sort of takeout action. Presumably X or 2NT are takeouts > > > (or possibly both with slightly different nuances, as some play) > > > but with 4333, it isn't clear that West will take an action. > > > Personally, since the repercussions are not clear, I would > > > probably assign A+/A- on the board. > > > > Now *that* (the A+/A-) is more likely to get our neighbo(u)rs across > > the pond complaining about the atrocity of our rulings. > > > > Only in the event of the questions and the very questionable > 3C call. Had the hand been 6421 as someone else suggested, . . . You missed my point. On BLML, we tend to get upset about directors awarding A+/A- when the director is supposed to compute a score (or a split score) by applying Law 12C2. Mostly, it seems to be American directors who do this. > > As I discussed on r.g.b, if opener's pass were in the pass-out seat, I > > think it would be more clear that the UI suggested a non-pass. In > > this case, however, because of the transfer, opener's pass wouldn't > > end the auction; therefore, it's a lot less clear that a non-pass is > > suggested. > > And I think the nature of the questions at the time suggested > very directly that non-pass would be advantageous to a pass > call. I do agree that the nature of the questions suggested that the questioner had values. But "XXX UI suggests possession of values" does *not* necessarily imply "XXX UI suggests that partner not pass." In some auctions it does. In some, it doesn't. No one has yet convinced me that in this particular auction, it does. You'll need to provide some additional logic to convince me that it does. -- 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 Sep 21 07:13:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8KLDZ125093 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 07:13:35 +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 e8KLDSt25089 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 07:13:29 +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 RAA01319 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:13:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA20727 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:13:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:13:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200009202113.RAA20727@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > To me, asking at the first opportunity at all auctions is completely > routine. What's the problem? This approach is common, although not universal, in the Boston area. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 21 07:30:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8KLU4S25110 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 07:30:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8KLTvt25106 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 07:29:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.24]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 14:30:11 -0700 Message-ID: <006a01c02349$60853020$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 14:25:58 -0700 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 From: > > > -Objet : Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal > Adam wrote: > > >I can't find anywhere in ACBL published material that discourages, or > >suggests that it's unethical, to ask a question that has no bearing on > >your action. The EBU *does* say something like this (according to > >what I've heard), but I don't believe the ACBL does. Perhaps we > >should write to Gary Blaiss or Mike Flader or some other ACBL bigwig > >to get a more official answer on this, but I believe they would say > >that a question in this situation is entirely proper and ethical. Do > >you have any evidence to the contrary? > _____________________________________________________________________ > > I have read on this in ACBL Bulletin some years ago and wrote > something similar in our local bulletin afterwards but cannot find the > exact ACBL Bulletin citation. > > The case I remember is this one: > > N E S W > 2C P 2D P > 2S P 3C! P(Q) > 3NT > > S alerted 3C. Then W asked about the meaning(at his turn and before > passing) and was told it "is a very weak hand, no relation with C. > Instead of making the "normal" H lead (10-9-x), E "found" a killing > C lead. W having A-x-x took hand and switched to D (down 2). > > As N, I called TD who allowed 3N making (on any other lead). > W had a flat hand and would never bid nor X on 3C. > I hope it was North who Alerted, not South. :) If players would *always* ask about such Alerted calls, or *always* consult the opposing cc (looking for "second negative," in this case) as they should in ACBL-land, then no UI and L16 doesn't come into play, as it evidently did here. Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, 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 Thu Sep 21 07:30:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8KLUNK25122 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 07:30:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.12]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8KLUHt25118 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 07:30:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-002kslawrP323.dialsprint.net [158.252.182.101]) by harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3-EL_1_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA19541 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 14:30:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <200009201629440560.0174058F@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <200009202113.RAA20727@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200009202113.RAA20727@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.10.03.02 (3) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 16:29:44 -0500 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >> To me, asking at the first opportunity at all auctions is completely >> routine. What's the problem? > >This approach is common, although not universal, in the Boston area. Likewise around Kansas City. Best regards, Brian Baresch, Lawrence, Kansas baresch@earthlink.net Editing, writing, proofreading "In a mass-market economy, a revolutionary song is any song you choose to sing yourself." -- Utah Phillips -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 21 07:38:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8KLcoF25134 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 07:38:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8KLcgt25130 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 07:38:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.15] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13brZc-0007th-00; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 22:38:36 +0100 Message-ID: <00b401c0234b$45e92300$085608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , , Cc: References: <91.c45c3c.26fa1fd9@aol.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Now about Maastricht appeal 14 Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 22:30:33 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: ; Cc: Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 3:12 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Now about Maastricht appeal 14 > --------------------- \x/ ------------------- > I am concerned by the lack of procedural approach dictated by the Code of > Practice that was evident in the Appeals Committee proceedings I attended. > In only rare cases was the vital question asked of the appellant -- "Why do > you think the TD decision should be changed?" If my frustration with the > rapidity of change in procedure is harmful, then I apologize for that > +=+ I think you have nothing to apologise for.- frustration is a human condition; but the causes of frustration are not removed by growing impatient. I do think AC Chairman were trying to get the answer to your question, without necessarily using just those words of enquiry. I do think every committee had members who were conscious that the question needed to be answered. For one thing we did have scribes who are not unfamiliar with the objectives of the CoP. ~ 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 Sep 21 07:39:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8KLd2h25142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 07:39:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8KLcqt25136 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 07:38:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.15] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13brZZ-0007th-00; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 22:38:33 +0100 Message-ID: <00b201c0234b$43f939e0$085608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , , Cc: References: <91.c45c3c.26fa1fd9@aol.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Now about Maastricht appeal 14 Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 21:49:35 +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: ; Cc: Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 3:12 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Now about Maastricht appeal 14 > +=+----------------- \x/ --------------------+=+ > When it comes to the rulings of the TDs under the Code of Practice, I stand > proud. We understood what was intended, we applied it to the best of our > abilities, and there were many rulings that would have been "appealed" under > the old system of automatically ruling against the infractor. The > consultation process was vital to our decisions where bridge judgement was > involved. The TDs and for the most part the players at this level (WBF) seem > to be aboard the train. I wish I could feel the same way about all the ACs, > but old habits are hard to break. > -- +=+ You have every right to be proud. The Directors have mostly picked up the ball and run with it very well. They have absorbed the changes more readily so far than the appeals committees. We are working on this. But you really must be patient - the Directors are working hour in and hour out so that you, Max and Antonio have more consistent opportunities to talk with and explain to (and debate with) the others. ~ 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 Sep 21 08:12:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8KMCHJ25174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 08:12:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8KMCBt25170 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 08:12:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcauin2.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.74.226]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA13942 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 18:12:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <004b01c0234f$8e011cc0$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000914080035.00ab02d0@127.0.0.1> <003401c01e6d$d72700e0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 18:10:14 -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: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 7:06 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >Looking at L12C1, we see that the artificial adjustment for > >an at-fault contestant is "at most 40%," with no stated > >minimum. Surely the corollary is that 100% should be the > >limit for a no-fault contestant. > > The WBFLC has interpreted L12C1. I do believe this is a case where an > interpretation was helpful, since the wording seems slightly flawed, so > can we not accept their interpretation and carry on? > > Their interpretation is that the at least 60% *only* refers to the > fact that it will be more than 60% when the contestant's session average > is greater than 60%. [So the ACBL interpretation is at variance with > the WBFLC interpretation: to be fair their interpretation was much > earlier.] > > Their interpretation is that the at most 40% refers to giving the > contestant less than 40% when the contestant's session average is less > than 40%. > Are you sure about this last one? I don't see any basis in law for giving less than 40% for A-, due to a bad session, as there is no complement to L88 that addresses bad scores. IMO that is as it should be. If a pair is having a 35% game, there is really little point to converting their 40% for the A- to 35%. It would only rub salt in the wound. However, the "at most 40%" does leave leeway for the TD. When the pair is directly at fault for a board being made unplayable, it is often appropriate to assess a PP over and above the assigned score. If the Lawmakers had not included the phrase "at most", an argument could be made that the 40% represents the penalty for the infraction required by law, and that it would be inappropriate to add a PP on top of that. If a pair habitually causes boards to be made unplayable, I'm going to start piling on PP's on top of their A-, until they stop. There is also the problem of a pair heading for a bottom, who could potentially make a board unplayable and escape for A-. IMO, the "equity" adjustment that we do not have for A+ is actually more important in an A- situation, where the possibility of a deliberate infraction is present. Take away the possibility of gain, and the temptation to perform the act is reduced. The phrase "at most 40%" reinforces other laws that allow me to insure that a) I can use a PP as a deterrent to habitual violators and b) I can assign a score that will prevent any gain to the OS in the event of an infraction that renders a board unplayable. Both of these are far more critical than adjusting A- downward for a bad session. My $0.02, FWIW. Regards, Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 21 10:32:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8L0VtH25439 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 10:31:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8L0Vht25431 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 10:31:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13buH1-000B8n-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 01:31:37 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 23:02:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] What takes precidence References: <3.0.6.32.20000828133410.00812ce0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <003401c00fac$d76536a0$555337d2@oemcomputer> <3.0.6.32.20000828133410.00812ce0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.6.32.20000920180237.00871100@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000920180237.00871100@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 13:27 20/09/00 +0100, you wrote: >>>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. >> >> It is under the Laws. Are you suggesting we ignore the Laws when we >>use BBs and not when we use written bidding? > >AG : I'm merely suggesting that, in all good faith, the NOS and OS will >respectively feel the was and wasn't a pause, so that evidence would not be >deducible. I give more credit to the verisimilitude of the bidding. > >For example, a player puts 1H on the table, but RHO has bid. >a) RHO has opened 1S. The player has a solid minor and stoppers. He >replaces 1H with 3NT. >I rule that he pulled out the wrong card (who on earth would bid 1H on such >a hand ? And the 1H card is at the place where 3NT is on other BBs) >b) RHO has opened 1NT. The player has long hearts. He replaces 1H with 2D, >playing transfers. I rule that he saw the 1NT bid too late, so he changed >his mind between the two bids, even if the pause is unnoticed. >The fact that the opponents did or didn't see a pause will not influence me. > >If I'm wrong in doing this, I'm happy to be. Alain: I *really* think you are wrong. If you are doing it this way that means you must be looking at the player's hand during the auction, which is a total no-no. You are giving information to the rest of the table, and using your bridge judgement. The recommended method is to ask questions [away from the table if you prefer] until you can decide whether a call is inadvertent. -- 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 Sep 21 10:32:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8L0Vss25438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 10:31:54 +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 e8L0Vht25430 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 10:31:44 +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 13buH1-000B8o-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 01:31:37 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 23:14:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more 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 Hills wrote: > >Herman De Wael wrote: > >"A convention is a set of things, including responses. > >Multi is a convention, and it includes certain standard >responses." > >This is the colloquial definition of convention. But the Laws define a >convention as "A call..." - singular. > >Take this sequence: 1NT - 2C (Simple Stayman, requesting partner to bid a >major or 2D with neither) - Pass (a gambling refusal of the request, >holding a minimum with clubs). The Pass cannot be regulated by the SO as >it is a natural call. An SO can put restrictions on a convention per L40D. For example, they could legally permit a pair to play Stayman *only* if it is *never* passed. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 21 11:32:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8L1WYu25513 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 11:32:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f287.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8L1WRt25509 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 11:32:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 18:32:19 -0700 Received: from 172.155.91.201 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 01:32:19 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.155.91.201] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Merry-go-round Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 18:32:19 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Sep 2000 01:32:19.0697 (UTC) FILETIME=[C865EE10:01C0236B] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson >alain gottcheiner wrote: > >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. > > Are you suggesting that I may not play a different defence against a >strong NT as against a weak NT? Where on earth does that rule come >from? No he is not. Players Al and Barb decide to play capiletti against strong NT and natural overcalls against weak NT. Players Xiou and Yakko decide to play havoc against strong NT and landy over weak NT. You must play the same style opening NT against one pair as you would the other. -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 Thu Sep 21 11:49:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8L1mwZ25533 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 11:48:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8L1mpt25529 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 11:48:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ives61.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.112.193]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA27817 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 21:48:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000920212654.013cb950@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 21:26:54 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] Compulsory Pause over Preempt In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.20000913173232.013b1e04@pop.mindspring.com> <005701c01d1a$d2c2a260$a0de36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <3.0.1.32.20000913173232.013b1e04@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:21 PM 9/20/2000 +0100, David wrote: > >>The practice is not illegal, at least not according to the Laws. Its >>practicality and import are less obvious. I think that the general standard >>is that the length of a pause should be evaluated in the context of the >>auction (i.e., without reference to the actual hand), and that in >>particular, a pause of about 8 to 10 seconds would be considered "in tempo" >>in this situation, with or without a note to that effect on the convention >>card. In fact, a call _without_ pause after a skip bid is potentially as >>informative as an excessively long pause. Unless the SO has issued specific >>standards against the use of such pauses, then their failure to adopt skip >>bid warnings is essentially irrelevant. > > I don't think this is right. In jurisdictions where mandatory pauses >over pre-empts are unknown then the normal pause over a pre-empt with a >flat Yarborough is going to be shorter than 8 to 10 seconds, probably >closer to 0.5 seconds. Players are not going to delay such pauses to >follow some sort of tempo that no-one uses. Really? In my jurisdiction, there is no requirement for pauses over pre-empts, and yet I do it all the time, with or without skip bid warnings. I believe other good players do this as well, even when they hold a Yarborough. If you are saying that many players ignore this simple principle, then of course you are right, but many players are incurable coffeehousers in countless ways. And I would feel completely justified in holding a player accountable for failing to act in a situation that obviously called for action, facing a lightning-quick pass by his partner over the opponent's pre-empt. Wouldn't you? 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 Thu Sep 21 12:57:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8L2uer25566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 12:56:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8L2uZt25562 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 12:56:35 +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 MAA08417 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 12:52:07 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 13:52:46 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Merry-go-round To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 13:53:59 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 21/09/2000 01:49:47 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd wrote: "You must play the same style opening NT against one pair as you would the other." At my local club, pairs frequently amend their system mid-session (usually after a bidding misunderstanding). It is conceivable that such a pair, after going -1100 in a weak NT, would immediately switch to playing a strong NT. The local SO could attempt to prohibit changing the strength of your 1NT opening mid-session by regulation. However, both types of NT opening are not conventional, so I am not sure what Law would make such a regulation legal. (Unless the event is a high-class one which requires advance notification of all systems.) Best wishes R -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 21 14:34:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8L4YGw25604 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 14:34:16 +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 e8L4Y9t25600 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 14:34:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.221] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13by3d-000ET6-00; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 05:34:02 +0100 Message-ID: <000c01c02385$4ef86ca0$dd5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "William Schoder" Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] Chosen. Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 04:00:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 19:01:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13c2E3-000JZ5-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 09:01:06 +0000 Message-ID: <8pYu7RA0HXy5EwZL@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 03:27:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Compulsory Pause over Preempt References: <3.0.1.32.20000913173232.013b1e04@pop.mindspring.com> <005701c01d1a$d2c2a260$a0de36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <3.0.1.32.20000913173232.013b1e04@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20000920212654.013cb950@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000920212654.013cb950@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >At 08:21 PM 9/20/2000 +0100, David wrote: >> >>>The practice is not illegal, at least not according to the Laws. Its >>>practicality and import are less obvious. I think that the general standard >>>is that the length of a pause should be evaluated in the context of the >>>auction (i.e., without reference to the actual hand), and that in >>>particular, a pause of about 8 to 10 seconds would be considered "in tempo" >>>in this situation, with or without a note to that effect on the convention >>>card. In fact, a call _without_ pause after a skip bid is potentially as >>>informative as an excessively long pause. Unless the SO has issued specific >>>standards against the use of such pauses, then their failure to adopt skip >>>bid warnings is essentially irrelevant. >> >> I don't think this is right. In jurisdictions where mandatory pauses >>over pre-empts are unknown then the normal pause over a pre-empt with a >>flat Yarborough is going to be shorter than 8 to 10 seconds, probably >>closer to 0.5 seconds. Players are not going to delay such pauses to >>follow some sort of tempo that no-one uses. > >Really? In my jurisdiction, there is no requirement for pauses over >pre-empts, and yet I do it all the time, with or without skip bid warnings. >I believe other good players do this as well, even when they hold a >Yarborough. If you are saying that many players ignore this simple >principle, then of course you are right, but many players are incurable >coffeehousers in countless ways. And I would feel completely justified in >holding a player accountable for failing to act in a situation that >obviously called for action, facing a lightning-quick pass by his partner >over the opponent's pre-empt. Wouldn't you? Of course. But I think it better if the SO provides methods for reducing UI rather than relying on players' 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 Thu Sep 21 19:02:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8L91IN25707 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 19:01:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8L918t25698 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 19:01:09 +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 13c2E3-000MGj-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 09:01:03 +0000 Message-ID: <6p$vLMAoGXy5Ew4T@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 03:25:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000914080035.00ab02d0@127.0.0.1> <003401c01e6d$d72700e0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> <004b01c0234f$8e011cc0$0200000a@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <004b01c0234f$8e011cc0$0200000a@mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Stevenson" >To: >Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 7:06 AM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director > > >> Marvin L. French wrote: >> >> >Looking at L12C1, we see that the artificial adjustment for >> >an at-fault contestant is "at most 40%," with no stated >> >minimum. Surely the corollary is that 100% should be the >> >limit for a no-fault contestant. >> >> The WBFLC has interpreted L12C1. I do believe this is a case where an >> interpretation was helpful, since the wording seems slightly flawed, so >> can we not accept their interpretation and carry on? >> >> Their interpretation is that the at least 60% *only* refers to the >> fact that it will be more than 60% when the contestant's session average >> is greater than 60%. [So the ACBL interpretation is at variance with >> the WBFLC interpretation: to be fair their interpretation was much >> earlier.] >> >> Their interpretation is that the at most 40% refers to giving the >> contestant less than 40% when the contestant's session average is less >> than 40%. >> > >Are you sure about this last one? I don't see any basis in law for giving >less than 40% for A-, due to a bad session, as there is no complement to L88 >that addresses bad scores. IMO that is as it should be. If a pair is >having a 35% game, there is really little point to converting their 40% for >the A- to 35%. It would only rub salt in the wound. As I argued at length here when we discussed it here. I do not think it a particularly sensible interpretation, but it is what the WBFLC said, at Lille I think. >However, the "at most 40%" does leave leeway for the TD. When the pair is >directly at fault for a board being made unplayable, it is often appropriate >to assess a PP over and above the assigned score. If the Lawmakers had not >included the phrase "at most", an argument could be made that the 40% >represents the penalty for the infraction required by law, and that it would >be inappropriate to add a PP on top of that. If a pair habitually causes >boards to be made unplayable, I'm going to start piling on PP's on top of >their A-, until they stop. You use L90 for PPs. It is perfectly in order to give N/S A+, ie 60% [...] and E/W A-, ie 40% [...] and also a PP of 40%, so in effect E/W get 0%. You do not need to mangle L12C1: L90 is perfectly adequate. -- 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 Sep 21 19:54:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8L9sev25751 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 19:54:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f253.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.26]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8L9sZt25747 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 19:54:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 02:54:27 -0700 Received: from 172.143.16.116 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 09:54:27 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.143.16.116] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 02:54:27 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Sep 2000 09:54:27.0401 (UTC) FILETIME=[EDE8BB90:01C023B1] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Ted Ying >Well, I respectfully disagree. This occurred in the US in >the ACBL domain and despite what our neighbors across the >pond think about the atrocity of ACBL law interpretation, >in the ACBL, it is not ethical or encouraged to ask questions >unless it has a direct bearing on your action. There's something to be said for randomly asking so that asking doesn't guarantee you have an interest in the auction. >Since the >E/W have a clear agreement about what W should bid (Pass >was alerted as showing <8 HCP, hence it should be considered >that any other bid would show something else), Just nit-picking logic here -- no it should not. Because he cannot pass with 8+ points does not mean that he can't bid with fewer. It depends on the agreements they play. Consider Hamilton against strong 1NT. Pass shows <15 HCP, but I can bid with as few as 5. Depending on your defenses to interference of a strong 2C, pass is <8, but a non-jump bid is 4-8. Personally I prefer X for bust, pass for penalties, any bid forcing to slam except when red against white, but I digress. -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 Thu Sep 21 20:09:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8LA8OV25781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 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 stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8LA8Ht25777 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 20:08:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id MAA06490 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 12:08:09 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Sep 21 12:09:21 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl (agro005s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.35]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #46444) with ESMTP id <01JUFN8NYFKI0001CJ@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 12:07:52 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 12:04:53 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 12:07:51 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: FW: [BLML] Chosen. To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6AC@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: Kooijman, A. Verzonden: donderdag 21 september 2000 9:23 Aan: 'Grattan Endicott' Onderwerp: RE: [BLML] Chosen. I am not sure that the information as given should be known of. Memory is not a very well maintained quality in present hasty life. So the EBL executive made a mistake. Max Bavin was appointed chief TD of the EBL already in 1987, but nobody in Maastricht, but Max and myself, seemed to be aware of that. In 1987 three others were appointed Chief TD as well: Hans Olof Hallen from Sweden, Claude Dadoun from France and myself from Netherlands. In the meantime Hans Olof and Claude have withdrawn. The effect of the decision taken in Maastricht is that Antonio Riccardi joined a now group of three CTD's in the EBL. Welcome Antonio. ton > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Grattan Endicott [mailto:Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk] > Verzonden: donderdag 21 september 2000 5:00 > Aan: William Schoder > CC: bridge-laws > Onderwerp: [BLML] Chosen. > > > > Grattan Endicott nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn > " Write the vision and make it plain upon the tables" > - Habakkuk > uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu > > +=+ I am not sure whether you know that Max Bavin > and Antonio Riccardi have been appointed Joint Chief > Directors by the European Bridge League. ~ G ~ +=+ > > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 21 21:56:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8LBtMC25829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 21:55:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cobalt1-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt1-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.161]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8LBtEt25825 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 21:55:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from pe4s08a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.120.229] helo=pacific) by cobalt1-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13c4um-0004qR-00; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 12:53:20 +0100 Message-ID: <007701c023c2$5cc02de0$e57893c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200009192205.SAA12775@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 12:00:58 +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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: 19 September 2000 23:05 Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more ----------------- \x/ ---------------- > I have a great deal of sympathy for Grattan's position. The practical > difficulties of drawing the required line are immense, and the rewards > are perhaps meager. It's easy to understand why the people who have to > do the work are eager to give up and say "SO's can regulate whatever > they want." But I think the LC has a duty to try to reach some > judgment on how far the regulators can go before it's "not bridge." > +=+ My point is that if (and I do mean 'if') there are the kind of difficulties in Zone 2 that a number of people moan about, that is a political matter and the Laws do not exist to deal with the background politics of the game. We cannot allow the alleged problems of one region to determine what the game requires; the laws are a matter of world-wide concern. +=+ > > It seems to me that the germ of a possible approach may in the laws > already. There is a distinction drawn between "style and judgment" on > the one hand and "method" on the other. Perhaps attaching clear > meanings to these (perhaps using different words) is the way forward. > Or perhaps not. But it does seem to me that the LC have a duty to > try. Otherwise we may find ourselves playing Euchre or Pinochle or > something worse. > +=+ This thought I like. Thank you. I shall research possibilities a bit when accumulating material for the General Review of the Laws. ~ 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 Sep 21 22:30:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8LCROU25912 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 22:27:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cobalt1-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt1-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.161]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8LCRDt25908 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 22:27:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from p0as09a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.121.11] helo=pacific) by cobalt1-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13c5Pl-0006qU-00; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 13:25:22 +0100 Message-ID: <009701c023c6$d60f5640$e57893c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Todd Zimnoch" , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 13:22:36 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: 21 September 2000 10:54 Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal > ---------------------- \X/ -------------- > There's something to be said for randomly > asking so that asking doesn't > guarantee you have an interest in the auction. > > +=+ Something, perhaps, but do not go over the top about it. In each instance when he is called the Director must decide whether the question has made extraneous information available to the asker's partner. Even when questions have been asked 'randomly' he may decide that there was such information made available. It is for him to consider the evidence and the particular circumstances. . ~ 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 Sep 21 22:38:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8LCbqU25924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 22:37:52 +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 e8LCbft25920 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 22:37:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-48.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.48]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA16841 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 14:37:35 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39C9F4C8.89AB457A@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 13:45:12 +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] Board spoiled by director References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000914080035.00ab02d0@127.0.0.1> <003401c01e6d$d72700e0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> <004b01c0234f$8e011cc0$0200000a@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > > > Their interpretation is that the at most 40% refers to giving the > > contestant less than 40% when the contestant's session average is less > > than 40%. > > > > Are you sure about this last one? I don't see any basis in law for giving > less than 40% for A-, due to a bad session, as there is no complement to L88 > that addresses bad scores. IMO that is as it should be. If a pair is > having a 35% game, there is really little point to converting their 40% for > the A- to 35%. It would only rub salt in the wound. > Well, the WBFLC has decided that this must be done. -- 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 Sep 21 22:55:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8LCswl25964 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 22:54:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8LCsqt25960 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 22:54:52 +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 e8LDCPT05282 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 09:12:26 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000921083635.00b434a0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 08:56:08 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal In-Reply-To: <200009202101.OAA28512@mailhub.irvine.com> 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 05:01 PM 9/20/00, Adam wrote: >Ted Ying wrote: > > > A common (at least on the East coast) interpretation of > > Law 73.B: > > > > B. Inappropriate Communication Between Partners > > 1. Gratuitous Information > > Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls > > or plays are made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, > > through questions asked or not asked of the opponents or through > > alerts and explanations given or not given to them. > > > > Although not explicit, here, many interpret the "through questions > > asked or not asked..." to include asking questions that may not > > influence your bid. > >Since the law says "asked OR NOT ASKED", why wouldn't they interpret >it to include "*not* asking questions that may not influence your >bid?" > >Law 73B1 really doesn't belong in this discussion, anyway. It's clear >to me, from context, that this Law is about using gratuitous >information to *intentionally* communicate information to partner. A >violation of Law 73B1 is a serious violation and is, essentially, >cheating. If the East Coasters are using this Law as a basis for >saying "you must not ask unless it will affect your bid", they're >essentially saying that anyone who asks what the Alert means, >immediately after an Alert, is cheating unless the information will >affect their next action. If the East Coasters actually believe that >everyone who does so is intentionally trying to communicate to their >partners---well, maybe they're right about people on the East Coast >. . . > > > If it doesn't affect your bid or action, why ask? > > It gives partner information > >No, it doesn't. The only information it gives is the information that >I don't already know what they're playing. When the opponents are bidding and his side isn't, a good player will be listening carefully to the opponents' auction and attempting to build a mental picture of their hands. To do this, he must understand what their calls mean. Any time an opponent makes a bid, he will need to understand the implications of the auction up to that point in order to best assess what information the last bid conveys that will help him. If he doesn't understand the meaning of a bid, he must have the unrestricted right to find out what it means by asking. To say that he may not do so is to require him to play something less than his best bridge. This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether understanding any particular bid will have any effect on his subsequent call(s). If what Mr. Ying says is correct, the ACBL has said, in effect, that it is not proper to attempt to formulate the best possible picture of your opponents hands before the play starts unless you need such a picture in order to decide on your actions during the auction. When I inquire about an opponent's call, it tells my partner that I do not know the meaning of that call. It gives no information about whether or not my own call subsequent to the question depended on that meaning. When I do not inquire, it tells my partner either that I think I know what the opponent's call means (notwithstanding that I'm often wrong), or that I'm being paranoid and am concerned that inquiring may wind up helping the opponents more than it helps me. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 21 23:45:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8LDiZA26069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 23:44:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8LDiTt26065 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 23:44:30 +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 JAA23806; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 09:44:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA185713863; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 09:44:23 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 09:44:22 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: RE: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, mfrench1@san.rr.com Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >> The case I remember is this one: > > N E S W > 2C P 2D P > 2S P 3C! P(Q) > 3NT > > S alerted 3C. Then W asked about the meaning(at his turn and before > passing) and was told it "is a very weak hand, no relation with C. > Instead of making the "normal" H lead (10-9-x), E "found" a killing > C lead. W having A-x-x took hand and switched to D (down 2). > > As N, I called TD who allowed 3N making (on any other lead). > W had a flat hand and would never bid nor X on 3C. ____________________________________________________________> I hope it was North who Alerted, not South. :) Marv French ___________________________________________________________ YES... I think I too often play on OKBridge with auto-alerts... Laval Du Breuil __________________________________________________________________ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 21 23:49:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8LDmuY26081 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 23:48:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8LDm1t26077 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 23:48:02 +1000 (EST) Received: by esebh02nok with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) id ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 16:47:43 +0300 Message-ID: From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com To: msd@mindspring.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Compulsory Pause over Preempt Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 16:47:42 +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 > > Really? In my jurisdiction, there is no requirement for pauses over > pre-empts, and yet I do it all the time, with or without skip > bid warnings. > I believe other good players do this as well, even when they hold a ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Don't go, Michael. We need you. :)))))))))))))) 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 Sep 21 23:53:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8LDrKS26093 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 23:53:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8LDrAt26089 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 23:53:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id PAA04225 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 15:53:07 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Sep 21 15:49:25 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl (agro005s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.35]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #46444) with ESMTP id <01JUFUWZ053U0001NV@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 15:47:30 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 15:44:31 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 15:47:28 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Board spoiled by director To: "'Herman De Wael'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6AF@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 > > > Their interpretation is that the at most 40% refers to > giving the > > > contestant less than 40% when the contestant's session > average is less > > > than 40%. > > > > > > > Are you sure about this last one? I don't see any basis in > law for giving > > less than 40% for A-, due to a bad session, as there is no > complement to L88 > > that addresses bad scores. IMO that is as it should be. > If a pair is > > having a 35% game, there is really little point There were two arguments used to make this interpretation (which we needed since 'at most' was added in the '97 laws). 1) It is consistent with the 'at least' approach for 60%; 2) When a pair causes the application of law 12-artificial score, it should not gain by receiving 40%, which in principle is the same argument as 1). If you want to consider this as little points, go ahead, but there have been less convincing reasons for interpretations of our laws. 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 Sep 22 00:07:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8LE6qp26110 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 00:06:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cobalt11-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt11-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.171]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8LE6jt26106 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 00:06:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from p63s09a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.89.100] helo=pacific) by cobalt11-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13c6xF-0001MZ-00; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 15:04:01 +0100 Message-ID: <002901c023d4$be98d5a0$237493c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Cc: "Richard Grenside" , "Antonio Riccardi" Subject: [BLML] Fw: Appeals committees; standards of evidence. Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 15:02:41 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott A question put: > >+=+ The WBF General Counsel has advised its > >appeals committees that the evidence on which > >they change a Director's ruling should be 'clear > >and convincing'. The standard is not 'proof beyond > >reasonable doubt' but 'balance of probabilities' is > >not enough. > > Does the EBU have a position on this? An > >interim reply before Saturday would be helpful. > A reply received: > I do not believe the EBU has a position. The > general approach of Committees has been to > follow experience, case Law, L&E minutes and gut > feelings, rather than laid-down standards. > +=+ This might be an interesting question put more widely. The WBF Advice has to do with the position created by the policies in the CoP. ~ 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 Sep 22 00:59:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8LExVB26155 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 00:59:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8LExQt26151 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 00:59:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ha433401 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 00:57:30 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-006-p-218-13.tmns.net.au ([203.54.218.13]) by mail4.bigpond.com (Claudes-Sea-Worthy-MailRouter V2.9b 7/1222090); 22 Sep 2000 00:57:28 Message-ID: <01be01c02380$34638fa0$35df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 13:58:28 +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 Ted Ying wrote: >>> Personally, since the repercussions are not clear, I would >>> probably assign A+/A- on the board. Adam Beneschan wrote: >> Now *that* (the A+/A-) is more likely to get our neighbo(u)rs >> across the pond complaining about the atrocity of our rulings. Legality, not "atrocity". I know that my post will be of no interest to many BLML subscribers, but I think the legal procedure is worth repeating on BLML, even if my response is from across the Pacific pond rather than Adam's anticipated Atlantic pond. (Ponds, not pond.) Ted wrote: >Only in the event of the questions and the very questionable >3C call. Had the hand been 6421 as someone else suggested, >I would agree that there was no merit in a penalty or even a >director call. Only when a borderline or worse (in this case >I don't even think the call is borderline, just bad and >inappropriate in light of the UI) call is made, would the >penalty be assessed. In this case, I think the 3C bid was >made in response to the UI...that's a penalty to me. Yes. Law 16A2 ---> Adjusted Score i.e. Law 12 Law12C2 MUST be used if a result has been obtained. If you still doubt this, reread the first two lines of Law 12C2. Compare with the first line of Law 12C1 ("when no result can be obtained"). The context of Law 12C2 makes it clear that "result" means a score such as 'plus 430' i.e the result of 52 cards having been played. Let's go back to the last sentence of Law 12C2, which means that the Director allows all 52 cards to be played before he decides whether to award an adjusted score. Thus a "result" has been obtained. Thus Law 12C2 MUST be used, i.e. a real score e.g. 'minus 100' must be given, not the A+/A- of Law 12C1. A+/A- is illegal. The ACBL can't override the Laws (ref Law 80F). OK, Ted? 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 Sep 22 01:52:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8LFpcr26189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 01:51:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8LFpVt26185 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 01:51:32 +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 LAA23634 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 11:51:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA27658 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 11:51:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 11:51:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200009211551.LAA27658@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Merry-go-round X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > The local SO could attempt to prohibit changing the strength of your 1NT > opening mid-session by regulation. However, both types of NT opening are > not conventional, so I am not sure what Law would make such a regulation > legal. (Unless the event is a high-class one which requires advance > notification of all systems.) For the 1NT opening, L40B plus L40E will do: 1. You must put the strength of the 1NT opening on the CC. 2. You may not change your CC during the session. These rules can be in effect even in a "low-class" event! In general, though, I think L80F allows SO's to regulate or prohibit changes in system during a session or indeed during a whole event. Is there anything in the Laws forbidding such a regulation? I won't mention L80E in case this message falls into the wrong hands. :-( -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 22 02:05:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8LG5KD26207 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 02:05:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8LG5Dt26203 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 02:05:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from pdas03a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.115.219] helo=pacific) by cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13c8p0-0005W7-00; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 17:03:38 +0100 Message-ID: <000f01c023e5$4839bbc0$db7393c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Herman De Wael'" , "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6AF@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 16:22:23 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: 'Herman De Wael' ; Bridge Laws Sent: 21 September 2000 14:47 Subject: RE: [BLML] Board spoiled by director > > > > > > Are you sure about this last one? I don't see any basis in > > law for giving > > > less than 40% for A-, due to a bad session, as there is no > > complement to L88 > > > that addresses bad scores. IMO that is as it should be. > > If a pair is > > > having a 35% game, there is really little point > +=+ Well, that is as may be. If it is a session of a qualifiying tournament to get 40% can just tip qualification. My view generally is that this is one thing the WBFLC has got absolutely right. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 22 04:13:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8LICw626299 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 04:12:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8LICpt26295 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 04:12:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4b2.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.17.98]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA13661; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 14:12:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <008001c023f8$087327c0$6211f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: , Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 14:16:14 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk (Michael Farebrother)>So, to them (us?), cynicism of our governing entities is not only>unsurprising, it's SOP (standard operating procedure). "And the thing >about being cynical is, you're rarely disappointed." But before calling >us too cynical, remember that ours is the SO that has twice decided, >in its infinite wisdom, that people want to only play one bidding system. >The results are a horrible kludge that I am forced to teach my novices >because they can't get an OKB partner otherwise, and - nothing. Anyone >outside the ACBL remember even what that other, more recent, >attempt was called? > Classic Bridge (for heaven's sayc...bombed worse than yellow card) perished in the obscurity it well deserved. Why don't you teach your novices something decent and help them draw up a card...with a real system they just might get good enough Lehman's to draw some decent partners and improve their game. >Frankly, I *want* some restriction on what the SO can do to me. In >return, I am willing to abide by reasonable restrictions on what I >can inflict on other members of the SO A reasonable approach - I actually believe that >certain restrictions on natural calls in selected, perhaps even most, >games would be good for the Game[1]. Selected perhaps...but why not be able to play your EHAA in most games? You can't develop a smooth running partnership changing away from your preferred system for real competition most of the time. Good teams practice...and mostly practice their own methods. > >What I don't like is that L40D, despite its explicit use of the >word Convention, is being used to restrict those natural methods, >because I can't know what they're going to go after next. And I know >they're going to go after something, soon. How do I know this? I'm >cynical. Or realistic. It is not paranoid to check to see if you are being followed, when you are indeed being stalked. If we do not want bridge in North America to become so sanitized as to make Old Maid the more innovative and challanging game we must draw the line that Eric has alluded to and draw it clearly. Whatever his imperfections (and they were far outweighed by his merits) EK was aware of the problems in (over)regulating the game on this side of the Atlantic and this influenced his agenda. It would be a great pity if the European feathers that may have been ruffled by this commanding personality now cast the players of a whole zone into purgatory and ensure the effective demise of the game here. We need to amend 40D to make clear that the freedom to use innovative methods of bidding and card play shall not be lightly or needlessly regulated out of existence. The Net Nannys who have dominated the ACBL since Oakie have done a fine job of not scaring off the octogenarians...but diminishing membership demonstrates that demographic forces are hard at work and bridge is in danger of dying out. If we could somehow find the vibrancy that national authorities in the Netherlands, Denmark, and Australia (a non-exhaustivelsit) seem to be imparting to the game in their jurisdictions such limitations on NBO/ZOs might be moot. But we need laws for the real world if American bridge is to survive to any meaningful degree. It pains me that the ACBL can be so restrictive, and unlike Eric I have stayed a member and paid my dues so I can have my however limited say. The organization has many fine hard working people who mean well for the game. But the tendency to overregulate and overgovern is great. Without checks and balances a philandering liar could have had free reign with power in my nation the last eight years. Instead, his impact was more limited, his concepts forced to win broad support to pass into law. A jury of one's peers while imperfect is superior to a Star Chamber in obtaining justice. We do not want ZOs with the power to say "let them eat sayc." Let's continue to delimit the meddling with bidding and card play and let good systems gain on their merits and inferior ones fail. 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 Fri Sep 22 04:23:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8LINSu26311 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 04:23:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8LINMt26307 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 04:23:23 +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 13cB05-000L4w-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 19:23:18 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 16:37:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: FW: [BLML] Chosen. References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6AC@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6AC@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: >I am not sure that the information as given should be known of. Memory is >not a very well maintained quality in present hasty life. So the EBL >executive made a mistake. Max Bavin was appointed chief TD of the EBL >already in 1987, but nobody in Maastricht, but Max and myself, seemed to be >aware of that. In 1987 three others were appointed Chief TD as well: Hans >Olof Hallen from Sweden, Claude Dadoun from France and myself from >Netherlands. In the meantime Hans Olof and Claude have withdrawn. The effect >of the decision taken in Maastricht is that Antonio Riccardi joined a now >group of three CTD's in the EBL. Welcome Antonio. I am very pleased to see that the EBL has such excellent CTDs - however many they 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 Sep 22 05:31:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8LJUuJ26351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 05:30:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com (imo-d06.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8LJUot26347 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 05:30:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.15.) id p.f7.2eb28b6 (8977) for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 15:30:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 15:30:38 EDT Subject: [BLML] Maastricht Appeals To: 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 Reading my own postings it seems that in my apparent haste and desire to effect success for the Code of Practice some of my comments reference the Appeals in Maastricht may have been construed as unhelpful and wrongly accusing of individuals who are sincerely trying to improve the process. I apologize to them, since no such effect was intended. My concerns are solely with the mechanics and procedures that are vital to make the CofP work. For those who know me my perhaps misplaced intensity is a manifestation of the popular "foot in mouth disease," very prevalent in the USA at election time, but not appropriate to this subject. Kojak -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 22 05:50:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8LJonL26369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 05:50:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.143]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8LJoet26365 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 05:50:40 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e8LJoVW07216 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 15:50:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200009211950.e8LJoVW07216@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 15:50:31 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <01be01c02380$34638fa0$35df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> from "Peter Gill" at Sep 21, 2000 01:58:28 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 Well, the problem is "when no result can be obtained". In the event that East was to pass and West were to balance, where would the contract end? 2S-X? 3C? 3S? I would agree with you in the event that you knew the final contract, but supposing that the UI had not been conveyed, you cannot determine what the contract would have been. Otherwise, you are arbitrarily assigning both a contract and result and that should only be allowed when the director can determine a reasonable and expected result. In the event that you have three potential (perhaps not equally weighted) results, how do you plan to assign the result? That's the point of my A+/A-. Find me an argument for assigning one of those three contracts and a reasonable score without question about the result and I'll concede that point, but I couldn't determine a result that was more likely than the others from that batch. -Ted. > From: "Peter Gill" > Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 13:58:28 +1000 > > Yes. Law 16A2 ---> Adjusted Score i.e. Law 12 > > Law12C2 MUST be used if a result has been obtained. If you > still doubt this, reread the first two lines of Law 12C2. Compare > with the first line of Law 12C1 ("when no result can be obtained"). > > The context of Law 12C2 makes it clear that "result" means > a score such as 'plus 430' i.e the result of 52 cards having been > played. > > Let's go back to the last sentence of Law 12C2, which means > that the Director allows all 52 cards to be played before he > decides whether to award an adjusted score. Thus a "result" > has been obtained. Thus Law 12C2 MUST be used, i.e. a real > score e.g. 'minus 100' must be given, not the A+/A- of Law 12C1. > > A+/A- is illegal. The ACBL can't override the Laws (ref Law 80F). > > OK, Ted? > > 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 Sep 22 08:13:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8LMC7726430 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 08:12:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8LMC1t26426 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 08:12:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.24]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 15:12:14 -0700 Message-ID: <024501c02418$50039140$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Merry-go-round Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 15:02:35 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd Zimmoch wrote: > >Players Al and Barb decide to play capiletti against strong NT and natural overcalls against weak NT. Players Xiou and Yakko decide to play havoc against strong NT and landy over weak NT. > You must play the same style opening NT against one pair as you would the > other. > Correct. Back to the Chicken and Egg problem, never resolved to my knowledge. The initial actors must state their method, and the opponents can alter countermeasures accordingly. The former cannot change method in response. This is an ACBL regulation, anyway. Things can get complicated. Pair A uses strong notrump openings, over which pair B uses weak jump overcalls as a defense, although they normally play strong jump overcalls. As a counter to that defense, Pair A, who normally play negative doubles of overcalls, play penalty doubles. As a counter to that, pair B decides to use SOS redoubles, although they use a redouble for some other purpose over a negative double. All this is okay, each initial action countered by a variable countermeasure, with the initial action not changing according to the countermeasure used against it. This sounds straightforward, but it leads to conclusions that are unacceptable to nearly everyone. We come up against a pair whose overcalls are pre-Alerted as extremely weak, and we use penalty doubles instead of our standard negative doubles against such pairs. The other pair is not supposed to tighten up its overcalls (to a degree that makes their cc incorrect, anyway) because of our policy, but of course they probably would. Now, the other pair might claim that their light overcalls are meant as a counter to negative doubles, and it is we who should not change method. That argument doesn't work, as the overcall comes first. You can't vary initial actions to counter anticipated measures that may be used against them. Otherwise you would have the unsolvable "Chicken and Egg" problem. At least, that is how I have interpreted the rather loose-worded ACBL regulations on the subject. Now, what about this: Suppose I don't want to redouble RHO's takeout double with a void in partner's suit if LHO's pass would be "to play." Do I have a right to inquire about their methods (let's say behind a screen) before redoubling with a void? I guess not. In fact, even if I know their methods in advance, I should not alter my redoubles to fit. Following this line leads to the strange conclusion that all countermeasures (e.g., penalty or negative doubles of overcalls) against initial actions (e.g., overcalls) ought not to disclosable until they are taken. Opponents can't change their initial actions according to what is used against them, so why would they need to know in advance? Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, 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 Fri Sep 22 08:25:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8LMPgw26443 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 08:25:42 +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 e8LMPZt26439 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 08:25:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.222] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13cEmZ-000Hcq-00; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 23:25:31 +0100 Message-ID: <000a01c0241a$ff015180$de5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000921083635.00b434a0@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 19:43:22 +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 Discussion List Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 1:56 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal ----------------- \x/ ------------------ > If what Mr. Ying says is correct, the ACBL has said, in effect, that it is > not proper to attempt to formulate the best possible picture of your > opponents hands before the play starts unless you need such a picture in > order to decide on your actions during the auction. > > When I inquire about an opponent's call, it tells my partner that I do not > know the meaning of that call. It gives no information about whether or > not my own call subsequent to the question depended on that meaning. When > I do not inquire, it tells my partner either that I think I know what the > opponent's call means (notwithstanding that I'm often wrong), or that I'm > being paranoid and am concerned that inquiring may wind up helping the > opponents more than it helps me. > +=+ One thing is plain. Mr. Landau is as pure and innocent as virgin snow, so disingenuous is his argument. It is sad that his opponents, and Directors too, will not always perceive the virtue in his beliefs. ~ 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 Sep 22 08:42:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8LMgYm26464 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 08:42:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8LMgRt26460 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 08:42:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.24]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 15:42:40 -0700 Message-ID: <025801c0241c$8fdec740$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Merry-go-round Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 15:32:12 -0700 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 From: > > Todd wrote: > > "You must play the same style opening NT against one pair as you would the > other." > > At my local club, pairs frequently amend their system mid-session (usually > after a bidding misunderstanding). It is conceivable that such a pair, > after going -1100 in a weak NT, would immediately switch to playing a > strong NT. > > The local SO could attempt to prohibit changing the strength of your 1NT > opening mid-session by regulation. However, both types of NT opening are > not conventional, so I am not sure what Law would make such a regulation > legal. (Unless the event is a high-class one which requires advance > notification of all systems.) > Law 40E1 allows an SO to prescribe a convention card and establish regulations for its use. I presume this means that the ACBL regulation forbidding a pair to change system midstream without the TD's okay is legal. This regulation, an "ELECTION BY THE ACBL BOARD OF DIRECTORS," is in the back of the Laws: 1. During a session of play, a system may not be varied, except with the permission of the Director. (A Director might allow a pair to change a convention but would not allow a pair to change their basic system.) 2. At the outset of a round or session, a pair may review their opponents' convention card and alter their defenses against the opponents' conventional calls and preemptive bids. This must be announced to their opponents. The opponents may not vary their system after being informed of these alterations in defense. Who writes this stuff?? Badly written, unclear (what constitutes a "system"), and why just "conventional calls and preemptive bids"? I can certainly alter my defense vs notrumps when encountering a super-weak 1NT opening. The wording (as probably intended) should be something like "and alter their defenses against preceding actions," and "The opponents may not vary those preceding actions after being informed..." It follows that alternative countermeasures should be allowable on a cc, but not alternative actions based on countermeasures that might be encountered. You can play penalty doubles vs weak notrumps only, but not strong notrumps vs penalty doublers only. Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, 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 Fri Sep 22 08:51:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8LMpVJ26479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 08:51:31 +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 e8LMpOt26475 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 08:51:25 +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 13cFBW-0000Ga-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 22:51:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 23:16:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal References: <01be01c02380$34638fa0$35df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <200009211950.e8LJoVW07216@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> In-Reply-To: <200009211950.e8LJoVW07216@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ted Ying wrote: > >Well, the problem is "when no result can be obtained". >In the event that East was to pass and West were to >balance, where would the contract end? 2S-X? 3C? >3S? I would agree with you in the event that you knew >the final contract, but supposing that the UI had not >been conveyed, you cannot determine what the contract >would have been. Why do you want to? There is nothing in the Laws that says you have to decide what the contract would have been. That is not how you assign scores. Assigning scores is easy [absent 12C3] because you just look at the various possibilities. You do not have to say which would have happened. You just consider them all. Suppose in the current case you think the possible contracts if you disallow 3C are 2S-1 2S-2 2S*-1 2S*-2 3C= 4C-1 or whatever. No, I have not looked at the hand. So you decide how many of have a reasonable likelihood of occurring, and you give the non- offenders the most favourable of those. Suppose you feel that 4C-1 is too unlikely, but the other five are likely enough. So you assign the NOs 2S-1 because that is the best for them of the remainder. How about the offenders? Now, which results are "at all probable" [and now you include results via the disallowed 3C bid]. Let us say that you could just about credit all the above occurring: you give the offenders the worst, namely 4C-1. In practical terms it is pretty rare for the NOs and the Os to get different scores, but not impossible. So, in effect, the correct ruling is to give the NOs a score which will probably be about 80% on the board, and the Os about 10%. But you want to give them 60%/40% because you cannot decide something that is irrelevant anyway. >Otherwise, you are arbitrarily assigning both a contract >and result and that should only be allowed when the >director can determine a reasonable and expected result. >In the event that you have three potential (perhaps not >equally weighted) results, how do you plan to assign the >result? Easy: you just read L12C2, and give the one of the three that is most favourable to the NOs. If you are giving A+/A- in that situation, then may I respectfully suggest you have not read the relevant Law for a very long time. Please open L12C2 and read it. >That's the point of my A+/A-. Find me an argument for >assigning one of those three contracts and a reasonable >score without question about the result and I'll concede >that point, but I couldn't determine a result that was >more likely than the others from that batch. The simple argument is that the Laws require it. Sure you can give illegal rulings if you want, but why you would want to I have no idea. You might just as well deal with revokes by giving the revoking pair 60% if they are men, 40% if they are women and 50% if they are a mixed pair. That is illegal and unnecessary. -- 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 Sep 22 09:03:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8LN2si26499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 09:02:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8LN2mt26495 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 09:02:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.24]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 16:03:03 -0700 Message-ID: <026801c0241f$67c4a2e0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200009191803.OAA12557@cfa183.harvard.edu> <000c01c02291$7d707c20$f05408c3@dodona> <39C8A315.B46BE74E@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Now about Maastricht appeal 14 Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 15:52:44 -0700 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: > Grattan speaks in riddles again : > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > > > We seem to be in the area of 'consequent' > > and 'subsequent', an aspect little to the fore > > in ACs since August 1998 when the WBFLC > > settled that "an advantage gained by an > > offender (see Law 72B1), provided it is > > related to the infraction and not obtained > > solely by the good play of the offenders, shall > > be construed as an advantage in the table > > score whether consequent or subsequent > > to the infraction" ~ Grattan ~ +=+. > > > > Please in plain English, Grattan, do you believe this > decision to be incorrect ? > There is an advantage, it is related to the infraction. > It is subsequent, not consequent. > > Do you believe there should have been an adjustment ? > I got the same quote from August 1998 when I asked whether the trick(s) lost thru a revoke by the non-offenders, unrelated to the infraction but subsequent to it, should be included in the offenders' assigned score. I think maybe yes, but I'm not good at riddles. Someone tell me the answer, please. Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, 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 Fri Sep 22 09:07:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8LN7CY26511 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 09:07:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8LN73t26507 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 09:07:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.24]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 16:07:17 -0700 Message-ID: <027201c0241f$ff60e460$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000914080035.00ab02d0@127.0.0.1> <003401c01e6d$d72700e0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> <004b01c0234f$8e011cc0$0200000a@mindspring.com> <39C9F4C8.89AB457A@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 16:02:17 -0700 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 From: "Herman De Wael" > Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > > > > > > Their interpretation is that the at most 40% refers to giving the > > > contestant less than 40% when the contestant's session average is less > > > than 40%. > > > > > > > Are you sure about this last one? I don't see any basis in law for giving > > less than 40% for A-, due to a bad session, as there is no complement to L88 > > that addresses bad scores. IMO that is as it should be. If a pair is > > having a 35% game, there is really little point to converting their 40% for > > the A- to 35%. It would only rub salt in the wound. > > > > Well, the WBFLC has decided that this must be done. > Herman, please quote the source when making a statement of this nature. I can't find where it is written. Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, 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 Fri Sep 22 09:18:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8LNHpW26531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 09:17:51 +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 e8LNHit26527 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 09:17:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.248] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13cFb2-000Jcy-00; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 00:17:40 +0100 Message-ID: <001a01c02422$48181640$f85908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastricht Appeals Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 23:59:31 +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 To: Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 8:30 PM Subject: [BLML] Maastricht Appeals > Reading my own postings it seems that in my apparent haste and desire > to effect success for the Code of Practice some of my comments reference the > Appeals in Maastricht may have been construed as unhelpful and wrongly > accusing of individuals who are sincerely trying to improve the process. > I apologize to them, since no such effect was intended. My concerns are > solely with the mechanics and procedures that are vital to make the CofP > work. For those who know me my perhaps misplaced intensity is a > manifestation of the popular "foot in mouth disease," very prevalent in > the USA at election time, but not appropriate to this subject. > > Kojak > -- +=+ Well, I rate that handsome. Whatever anyone's reaction to what they read of rulings and committees, there is absolutely no-one involved who is not trying to do his/her best for the game. The effort now is to make the CoP policies work ever better, and we can all learn from quiet and reflective review and questioning of things reported. And talking within the perspective of the CoP because that is now the appeals policy and the regulation. I would like that because it would help us with our next production when mere rattling will 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 Fri Sep 22 10:09:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8M09Qj26571 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 10:09:26 +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 e8M09Lt26567 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 10:09:21 +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 KAA03556 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 10:04:44 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 11:05:21 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] BSC - more To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 11:06:36 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 22/09/2000 11:02:22 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson legislated: "An SO can put restrictions on a convention per L40D. For example, they could legally permit a pair to play Stayman *only* if it is *never* passed." If the Tasmanian Bridge Association had a regulation 15 years ago prohibiting the passing of an artificial forcing call, a sequence worthy of the Romex Award for best auction would never have occurred. Partner opened a BSC Forcing Pass (13+ hcp). RHO had carefully discussed a defence to our convention before the match, and had available lots of one- and two-suited preemptive overcalls to disrupt our auction. But upon looking at his hand, RHO realised that there was a slight hole in his defensive methods against a Forcing Pass, since there was no way he could show his balanced 24 count. So RHO passed, intending to emerge from the bushes with strength showing calls on subsequent rounds of the auction. However, RHO was unable to pass in tempo. Therefore, holding a yarborough, I applied L73D1 and passed my partner's *Forcing* Pass. And LHO, holding a three count, was unable to balance, resulting in a game swing to the good guys. Best wishes R -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 22 10:30:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8M0UI026589 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 10:30:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8M0UCt26585 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 10:30:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA32427; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 17:30:05 -0700 Message-Id: <200009220030.RAA32427@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 21 Sep 2000 19:43:22 PDT." <000a01c0241a$ff015180$de5608c3@dodona> Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 17:30:06 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > If what Mr. Ying says is correct, the ACBL has said, in effect, that it is > > not proper to attempt to formulate the best possible picture of your > > opponents hands before the play starts unless you need such a picture in > > order to decide on your actions during the auction. > > > > When I inquire about an opponent's call, it tells my partner that I do not > > know the meaning of that call. It gives no information about whether or > > not my own call subsequent to the question depended on that meaning. When > > I do not inquire, it tells my partner either that I think I know what the > > opponent's call means (notwithstanding that I'm often wrong), or that I'm > > being paranoid and am concerned that inquiring may wind up helping the > > opponents more than it helps me. > > > +=+ One thing is plain. Mr. Landau is as > pure and innocent as virgin snow, so > disingenuous is his argument. It is sad > that his opponents, and Directors too, > will not always perceive the virtue in > his beliefs. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ No, Grattan, I think that's wrong. I think that perhaps English opponents, and English Directors, may not perceive the virtue in his beliefs. But it appears that asking routinely about alerted calls (or other unfamiliar calls), without regard to what's in one's hand, is a more normal practice in Eric's area, as it is in Southern California where I play, and apparently in the Boston and Kansas City areas as well, judging from the responses so far, and, for all I know, everywhere in the ACBL except for the area where Mr. Ying directs. In those places, there's no reason for Directors or opponents to be so suspicious of Eric's motives. We seem to be dealing with two different cultures here, and we seem to have a situation where some people who are used to playing in one atmosphere can't fathom that there are people who play according to different customs---sort of like how people in some places can't fathom that a handshake or other gesture that they consider an insult could actually be considered an expression of camaraderie in other cultures. -- 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 Sep 22 11:05:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8M15ca26618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 11:05:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8M15Xt26614 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 11:05:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot32.domain8.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id wa076332 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 11:05:12 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-012-p-228-207.tmns.net.au ([203.54.228.207]) by mail8.bigpond.com (Claudes-Interesting-MailRouter V2.9b 17/11060156); 22 Sep 2000 11:05:08 Message-ID: <003701c023d5$15c7dd80$57d736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 00:05:24 +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 Ted Ying wrote: >Otherwise, you are arbitrarily assigning both a contract >and result and that should only be allowed when the >director can determine a reasonable and expected result. You say "should". OK. so you are entitled to think that that is the fairest way, but the Laws say that you do something else. Directors have to follow the Laws, whether they like it or not. The fact that some Directors don't, by giving A+/A-, doesn't make it right. My personal view is that the Laws' approach is slightly fairer than the approach that you suggest, but my personal view is irrelevant. The Laws specify a method so we must follow it. 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 Sep 22 13:19:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8M3IpI26766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 13:18:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8M3Iht26762 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 13:18:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ives1r.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.112.59]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA31906 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 23:18:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000921231828.0198ce1c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 23:18:28 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal In-Reply-To: <009701c023c6$d60f5640$e57893c3@pacific> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:22 PM 9/21/2000 +0100, Grattan wrote: >From: Todd Zimnoch >---------------------- \X/ -------------- >> There's something to be said for randomly >> asking so that asking doesn't >> guarantee you have an interest in the auction. >> >> +=+ Something, perhaps, but do not go over >the top about it. In each instance when he is called >the Director must decide whether the question has >made extraneous information available to the asker's >partner. Even when questions have been asked >'randomly' he may decide that there was such >information made available. It is for him to >consider the evidence and the particular >circumstances. . ~ Grattan ~ +=+ True, but I believe Todd's comments in this respect (as well as my own) concerned the proper behavior of a player who is sincerely concerned about avoiding UI, rather than the appropriate standard of evidence for a TD in evaluating such a case. And certainly a truly "random" approach in asking questions would avoid communicating UI, even if it wouldn't necessarily get you off the hook from the TD's perspective in any particular instance. 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 Sep 22 16:15:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8M6CVc26911 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 16:12:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8M6CPt26907 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 16:12:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcaugar.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.65.91]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id CAA21821 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 02:12:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001701c0245b$cb0ca000$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6AF@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 02:10:22 -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: "Kooijman, A." To: "'Herman De Wael'" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 9:47 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] Board spoiled by director > > > > > > Their interpretation is that the at most 40% refers to > > giving the > > > > contestant less than 40% when the contestant's session > > average is less > > > > than 40%. > > > > > > > > > > Are you sure about this last one? I don't see any basis in > > law for giving > > > less than 40% for A-, due to a bad session, as there is no > > complement to L88 > > > that addresses bad scores. IMO that is as it should be. > > If a pair is > > > having a 35% game, there is really little point > > There were two arguments used to make this interpretation (which we needed > since 'at most' was added in the '97 laws). > > 1) It is consistent with the 'at least' approach for 60%; It is consistent, but 60% and 40% present very different problems. The approach taken with regard to 60% or session average is a good one IMO. There will be some rare instances (as discussed in other threads) where the pair taking an A+ may not get full "equity", for example, if opponents were about to play in an awful contract when UI stops the play. This is more than made up for by creating a clear standard for what a TD must award when a board is not played. However, the 40% should be more flexible in order to insure your own point #2. > 2) When a pair causes the application of law 12-artificial score, it should > not gain by receiving 40%, which in principle is the same argument as 1). > Actually, I disagree that these are the same arguments. Your point 2 was one of my own arguments. The problem at 40% or session average is that there is still a very real possibility that a player could gain through such an infraction. The problem is not addressed by simply giving those players their session score. Suppose they have a 35% game going, but that is all they need for qualification (to use Grattan's example. Maybe they have a large carryover). They still insure qualification by making the board unplayable, even though all they get is their session score. The interpretation of A- as 40% or session score might still not be enough to insure that the offenders do not gain. > If you want to consider this as little points, go ahead, but there have been > less convincing reasons for interpretations of our laws. > > ton > L90 is enough to insure that there is no gain from the infraction, if the TD uses it liberally, but that was there before A- was redefined. The problem with the redefinition is that it doesn't add anything, and simply gives fodder to the bridge lawyers. The new interpretation of A- specifies a specific penalty to be paid when a board is rendered unplayable. A specious argument could be made that since the penalty is the one mandated by the Laws for the infraction, an additional penalty would violate 12B. This is a wrong argument, but who needs it? The vague definition of A- is actually a help here, since it gives the TD room to adjust in such a way as to prevent gain on the board, without worrying about a player pointing to the laws and saying that the adjustment was unfair and against the letter of L12. If you really want to address the issue of a pair not gaining with an A-, I propose the following to be added to L12 or L88: "If a contestant is directly and solely responsible for rendering a board unplayable, then that contestant shall receive no matchpoints on the board." That ought to do it. However, since it's a bit direct for the laws as they stand, how about this one?: "If a contestant is directly and solely responsible for rendering a board unplayable, and the contestant could have known at the time the board was rendered unplayable that he might gain an advantage in the event through rendering the board unplayable, then that contestant shall receive no matchpoints on the board." A bit harsh, but the offending side won't gain by making a board unplayable with either of them. I like the first one better. It might have a salutory effect on habitually slow players. Regards, Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 22 17:25:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8M7Oxg26960 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 17:24:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8M7Olt26951 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 17:24:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.93] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13cNCJ-000NqU-00; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 08:24:39 +0100 Message-ID: <002401c02466$50553740$5d5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Peter Gill" , "Bridge Laws" References: <003701c023d5$15c7dd80$57d736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 08:07:46 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 3:05 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal > Ted Ying wrote: > >Otherwise, you are arbitrarily assigning both a contract > >and result and that should only be allowed when the > >director can determine a reasonable and expected result. > > > You say "should". OK. so you are entitled to think that that > is the fairest way, but the Laws say that you do something else. > Directors have to follow the Laws, whether they like it or not. > The fact that some Directors don't, by giving A+/A-, doesn't > make it right. My personal view is that the Laws' approach is > slightly fairer than the approach that you suggest, but my personal > view is irrelevant. The Laws specify a method so we must follow it. > +=+ But Ted has arrived at the point where the weighted score is the developing solution. The point where a number of potential results are seen to exist and at which to allow something for each of them is fairer than to pick one - or an artificial score - and thrust it upon the players. The argument for showing the percentages is the case for transparency, for letting the players see and be helped to feel some effort has been made to avoid the arbitrary. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 22 17:25:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8M7Owv26959 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 17:24:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8M7Oit26947 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 17:24:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.93] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13cNCL-000NqU-00; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 08:24:41 +0100 Message-ID: <002501c02466$5147d4a0$5d5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: References: <200009220030.RAA32427@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 08:19:56 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Cc: Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 1:30 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal > everywhere in the ACBL except for the area where Mr. Ying directs. In > those places, there's no reason for Directors or opponents to be so > suspicious of Eric's motives. > +=+ I am not suspicious of his motives. Not in the least. I am sceptical of the alleged effects. See parallel reply to M. Dennis. ~ 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 Sep 22 17:25:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8M7Omi26952 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 17:24:48 +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 e8M7Oft26944 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 17:24:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.93] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13cNCH-000NqU-00; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 08:24:38 +0100 Message-ID: <002301c02466$4f611340$5d5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" References: <3.0.1.32.20000921231828.0198ce1c@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 07:52:31 +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 To: Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 4:18 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal > > True, but I believe Todd's comments in this respect (as well as my own) > concerned the proper behavior of a player who is sincerely concerned about > avoiding UI, rather than the appropriate standard of evidence for a TD in > evaluating such a case. And certainly a truly "random" approach in asking > questions would avoid communicating UI, even if it wouldn't necessarily get > you off the hook from the TD's perspective in any particular instance. > +=+ In truth the ideas about asking randomly and always asking are largely bunkum. Partners are our familiars; they learn our twitches and our tones; they look into our souls and know when we are interested. So Directors ignore the plea that we ask randomly or always ask, they look at partner's action, see that it may well have been influenced by the question, adjust the score. And rightly so. The WBF says an AC needs clear and convincing evidence to change the Director's verdict. ~ 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 Sep 22 17:50:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8M7oJV26990 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 17:50:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8M7oCt26986 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 17:50:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis22.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.22]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.1999.06.13.00.20) with ESMTP id <0G1A00J4B33HFL@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 09:50:07 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 09:49:19 +0200 From: Richard Bley Subject: [BLML] Falsecards after hesitation X-Sender: bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de To: blML Message-id: <4.3.2.7.0.20000922094359.00b25c60@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all, this e-Mail took some strange way to my desktop (original E-Mail from Dirk Willecke; resonse from David Stevenson). I know that there was some rulings, which forbidded Falsecards after hesitating. Look at: http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/appeals/ebc95.html Appeal 11 + 18 My questions: 1) Are this rulings still up to date? 2) Is this ruling only for the defending side? Thanks in advance Richard > >I would like to hear your opinion in the following case: > >Matchpoints, Dealer North > > > > KT97x > > x > > AKxxx > > Q9 > > > > Axx QJx > > Jxx Qxxx > > xx QJxx > > Txxxx Jx > > > > 8x > > AKTxx > > Tx > > AKxx > > > >The bidding went: > > > > N E S W > >======================== > > 1S p 2H p > > 2S p 3NT all pass > > > >West led a small club, 9, J and K. > >Small spade to the 7 loses to the Q. > >A club ran to the Q. > >Then declarer tried a small diamond from dummy. > >East hesitated for a long time and took the queen. > >East shifted to hearts, won by declarer's ace. > >On the 8 of spades West immediately raised with the ace > >and continued club. > >On that trick and the following king of hearts, > >declarer had to find two discards in dummy. > >Because of the hesitation he decided East could have > >had a problem with a diamond holding like Qxx or Qxxx > >and threw the spades. So eventually the result was > >3NT down one. > > > >My questions are: > >If East considered ducking the diamond, because > >partner might have held the ten, is this sufficient > >for a "demonstrable bridge reason" (L73F2)? > > Yes, I believe so. > > >Is it against the bridge ethics to play the queen > >and not the jack after hesitation? > > No - but I have heard this before. I think there is a local rule >somewhere that you may not false-card after a hesitation. Furthermore >some people would think it sharp practice. > > > (If yes, is > >there a regulation or is it "just" a ruling > >practice?) Does it matter (for the question of > >"falsecarding" woth the queen) if the problem > >the player was thinking about was considered a > >"demonstrable bridge reason"? > > If East was considering whether to false-card or not, so he was only >deciding whether to play the Q or the J then I would adjust. > > But if he is considering ducking he might judge he should definitely >play the Q if he does not duck. So his hesitation is solely whether to >play the Q or duck - and that is a demonstrable bridge reason. > > >Would you give redress to South and correct the score? > > No. > >Cheers >-- >David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK >Feel free to quote from this email, or write for clarification >Please use this eddress for laws queries Tel: +44 151 677 7412 >Fax: +44 870 055 7697 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 Sep 22 18:52:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8M8pJL27033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 18:51:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8M8pCt27029 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 18:51:13 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id JAA02327 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 09:51:03 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 09:51 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Alas, Poor Yorick, I Knew Him Well... 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 problem with this sort of UI problem is that if there is no > UI pd thinks "I have no idea what my stupid partner is up to by > bidding 2S and getting doubled, but I shall pass: it is his > concern." He does not deduce a poor spade suit because pd has > passed. Take a simple case like 1N-2D(WTO by me)-2H. The first thought to occur is "Oh S***, did we agree transfers, or might pard think we agreed transfers?". The bid is unusual and anti-systemic and I guarantee I would get this right every time behind screens. I therefore believe that a peer with UI in a similar situation should also be allowed to "wake up" to the fact that a wheel as come off and why. This case is more complex but I think we should still consider the possibility of allowing a wake-up. > However, with the UI, pd thinks "I know that pd has got it wrong > because of his explanation: I am not allowed to use that. However, > I know he cannot have a long spade suit anyway so I can safely take > it out and it is not because of the explanation." Players are supposed to bid as if the UI was absent. If partner has already denied a long/decent spade suit then what might 2S mean? The only thing* I can think of is constructive, 5s and 3+ (usually 4) diamonds. We therefore need to consider whether the bidding does deny decent spades. With this system there is no LA to 3D even before the double. *with a reasonable partner 2S is not "running" or "panic" because we are currently undoubled, if partner is weak/unfamiliar then other possibilities exist. > Whenever we get a ruling like this there is always support for > allowing it but that is not right. The player has not bent over > backwards to avoid using the UI as L73C requires, but has merely > thought of a justification. Or has made a genuine effort to try and comply but failed in their judgement. > Why did he run to 3D after bidding 2D with 5-4 in the minors? > Because he based his bid on UI. At least if he had redoubled or bid > 3C we might have believed he was innocent. I really do not like using the term guilty unless there is clear and deliberate (in the TDs opinion) abuse of UI. It is unnecessarily pejorative and contentious. It may be suitable for this case, it may not - you probably had to be there. 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 Sep 22 19:57:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8M9vBt27062 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 19:57:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8M9v4t27058 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 19:57:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-98.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.98]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA21621; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 11:36:41 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39CB1282.B6430D9A@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 10:04:18 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws , Grattan Endicott Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000914080035.00ab02d0@127.0.0.1> <003401c01e6d$d72700e0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> <004b01c0234f$8e011cc0$0200000a@mindspring.com> <39C9F4C8.89AB457A@village.uunet.be> <027201c0241f$ff60e460$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > From: "Herman De Wael" > > Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Their interpretation is that the at most 40% refers to giving > the > > > > contestant less than 40% when the contestant's session average > is less > > > > than 40%. > > > > > > > > > > Are you sure about this last one? I don't see any basis in law > for giving > > > less than 40% for A-, due to a bad session, as there is no > complement to L88 > > > that addresses bad scores. IMO that is as it should be. If a > pair is > > > having a 35% game, there is really little point to converting > their 40% for > > > the A- to 35%. It would only rub salt in the wound. > > > > > > > Well, the WBFLC has decided that this must be done. > > > Herman, please quote the source when making a statement of this > nature. I can't find where it is written. > What is it Marv, don't you trust me ? And yet both David and Ton have also said this. But we don't remember where it was decided. Grattan - please help the doubting Thomases. -- 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 Sep 22 21:40:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8MBd9Y27103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 21:39:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (mta01-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8MBcxt27099 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 21:39:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.16.111]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000922113851.QKXZ16640.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 12:38:51 +0100 Message-ID: <003101c0248a$50cef0c0$6f10ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne.jones1" To: "BLML" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000914080035.00ab02d0@127.0.0.1> <003401c01e6d$d72700e0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> <004b01c0234f$8e011cc0$0200000a@mindspring.com> <39C9F4C8.89AB457A@village.uunet.be> <027201c0241f$ff60e460$189c1e18@san.rr.com> <39CB1282.B6430D9A@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 12:43:23 +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" ; "Grattan Endicott" Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 9:04 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > > From: "Herman De Wael" > > > Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Their interpretation is that the at most 40% refers to giving > > the > > > > > contestant less than 40% when the contestant's session average > > is less > > > > > than 40%. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you sure about this last one? I don't see any basis in law > > for giving > > > > less than 40% for A-, due to a bad session, as there is no > > complement to L88 > > > > that addresses bad scores. IMO that is as it should be. If a > > pair is > > > > having a 35% game, there is really little point to converting > > their 40% for > > > > the A- to 35%. It would only rub salt in the wound. > > > > > > > > > > Well, the WBFLC has decided that this must be done. > > > > > Herman, please quote the source when making a statement of this > > nature. I can't find where it is written. > > > > What is it Marv, don't you trust me ? > > And yet both David and Ton have also said this. > > But we don't remember where it was decided. > > Grattan - please help the doubting Thomases. > Grattan did just that, very recently. Anne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 22 22:24:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8MCO9G27189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 22:24:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8MCNvt27185 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 22:23:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from pd3s06a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.102.212] helo=pacific) by cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13cRql-0000I1-00; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 13:22:43 +0100 Message-ID: <000a01c0248f$85df48a0$d46693c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" , "Grattan Endicott" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000914080035.00ab02d0@127.0.0.1> <003401c01e6d$d72700e0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> <004b01c0234f$8e011cc0$0200000a@mindspring.com> <39C9F4C8.89AB457A@village.uunet.be> <027201c0241f$ff60e460$189c1e18@san.rr.com> <39CB1282.B6430D9A@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 12:39:32 +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 5.00.2314.1300 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 ; Grattan Endicott Sent: 22 September 2000 09:04 Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > > What is it Marv, don't you trust me ? > > And yet both David and Ton have also said this. > > But we don't remember where it was decided. > > Grattan - please help the doubting Thomases. > +=+ I see nothing from Mr. Dehn. :-)) But the French Connection should have been satisfied with what Ton wrote. The WBFLC has a minute to confirm the decision (published on blml on a previous occasion). ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 22 22:30:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8MCUis27212 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 22:30:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8MCUbt27208 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 22:30:38 +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 e8MCUWO81005 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 08:30:33 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000922082326.00ab58c0@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, 22 Sep 2000 08:31:56 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal In-Reply-To: <000a01c0241a$ff015180$de5608c3@dodona> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000921083635.00b434a0@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:43 PM 9/21/00, Grattan wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: Eric Landau > >----------------- \x/ ------------------ > > If what Mr. Ying says is correct, the ACBL has said, in effect, that it is > > not proper to attempt to formulate the best possible picture of your > > opponents hands before the play starts unless you need such a picture in > > order to decide on your actions during the auction. > > > > When I inquire about an opponent's call, it tells my partner that I do not > > know the meaning of that call. It gives no information about whether or > > not my own call subsequent to the question depended on that meaning. When > > I do not inquire, it tells my partner either that I think I know what the > > opponent's call means (notwithstanding that I'm often wrong), or that I'm > > being paranoid and am concerned that inquiring may wind up helping the > > opponents more than it helps me. > > >+=+ One thing is plain. Mr. Landau is as >pure and innocent as virgin snow, so >disingenuous is his argument. It is sad >that his opponents, and Directors too, >will not always perceive the virtue in >his beliefs. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Oddly, they do seem to. Although over the years I've had dozens of director calls occasioned by potential UI situations caused by my partnership, none of them have ever involved questioning the opponents about their methods. It would seem that my approach to asking questions is not an uncommon one, at least in the areas where I've done most of my playing (mid-Atlantic and eastern great lakes, U.S and Canada). 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 Sep 22 22:42:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8MCfpJ27229 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 22:41:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8MCfit27225 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 22:41:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.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 e8MCfeQ81177 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 08:41:41 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000922083408.00b51c00@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, 22 Sep 2000 08:43:04 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal In-Reply-To: <200009211950.e8LJoVW07216@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> References: <01be01c02380$34638fa0$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 03:50 PM 9/21/00, Ted wrote: >Well, the problem is "when no result can be obtained". >In the event that East was to pass and West were to >balance, where would the contract end? 2S-X? 3C? >3S? I would agree with you in the event that you knew >the final contract, but supposing that the UI had not >been conveyed, you cannot determine what the contract >would have been. > >Otherwise, you are arbitrarily assigning both a contract >and result and that should only be allowed when the >director can determine a reasonable and expected result. >In the event that you have three potential (perhaps not >equally weighted) results, how do you plan to assign the >result? By following L12C2 -- giving the NOS "the most favorable [of the three potential results] that was likely" and the OS "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable". In Mr. Ying's hypothetical, it sounds like all three of the results are "likely", so I would just pick the one most favorable to the NOS and assign it to both sides. >That's the point of my A+/A-. Find me an argument for >assigning one of those three contracts and a reasonable >score without question about the result and I'll concede >that point, but I couldn't determine a result that was >more likely than the others from that batch. But L12C2 imposes no requirement to determine the relative likelihood of the possible results, only whether each of them is, by itself, "likely" or "at all probable". That is a much easier judgment, and all that the law requires. If the three possible results would yield 70%, 80% and 90% scores to the NOS, it would hardly be fair or equitable for them to receive a 60% score as a result of their opponents' 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 Sep 22 22:59:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8MCxBW27247 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 22:59:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8MCx4t27243 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 22:59:05 +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 e8MCx0O82724 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 08:59:01 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000922085129.00aaff00@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, 22 Sep 2000 09:00:24 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Merry-go-round In-Reply-To: <024501c02418$50039140$189c1e18@san.rr.com> 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 06:02 PM 9/21/00, Marvin wrote: >Correct. Back to the Chicken and Egg problem, never resolved to my >knowledge. > >The initial actors must state their method, and the opponents can >alter countermeasures accordingly. The former cannot change method in >response. This is an ACBL regulation, anyway. > >Things can get complicated. Pair A uses strong notrump openings, over >which pair B uses weak jump overcalls as a defense, although they >normally play strong jump overcalls. As a counter to that defense, >Pair A, who normally play negative doubles of overcalls, play penalty >doubles. As a counter to that, pair B decides to use SOS redoubles, >although they use a redouble for some other purpose over a negative >double. > >All this is okay, each initial action countered by a variable >countermeasure, with the initial action not changing according to the >countermeasure used against it. > >This sounds straightforward, but it leads to conclusions that are >unacceptable to nearly everyone. We come up against a pair whose >overcalls are pre-Alerted as extremely weak, and we use penalty >doubles instead of our standard negative doubles against such pairs. >The other pair is not supposed to tighten up its overcalls (to a >degree that makes their cc incorrect, anyway) because of our policy, >but of course they probably would. > >Now, the other pair might claim that their light overcalls are meant >as a counter to negative doubles, and it is we who should not change >method. That argument doesn't work, as the overcall comes first. You >can't vary initial actions to counter anticipated measures that may be >used against them. Otherwise you would have the unsolvable "Chicken >and Egg" problem. > >At least, that is how I have interpreted the rather loose-worded ACBL >regulations on the subject. > >Now, what about this: Suppose I don't want to redouble RHO's takeout >double with a void in partner's suit if LHO's pass would be "to play." >Do I have a right to inquire about their methods (let's say behind a >screen) before redoubling with a void? I guess not. In fact, even if I >know their methods in advance, I should not alter my redoubles to fit. > >Following this line leads to the strange conclusion that all >countermeasures (e.g., penalty or negative doubles of overcalls) >against initial actions (e.g., overcalls) ought not to disclosable >until they are taken. Opponents can't change their initial actions >according to what is used against them, so why would they need to know >in advance? The ACBL regulation forbids you from altering your methods based on the opponents' defences to them, but you are still free to use judgment. Just because I announce that in first seat at favorable vulnerability I may pre-empt on as little as seven small with 0 HCP doesn't mean that a pass guarantees that I do not hold that hand. If I happen upon a rare pair who plays penalty doubles of pre-empts, I am free to exercise my tactical judgment and choose to pass with a hand that might pre-empt against most other pairs, at least until I have done it consistently and often enough with a particular partner that he can anticipate it (at which point it becomes incorporated into our 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 Sat Sep 23 00:18:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8MEHcs27287 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 00:17:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8MEHPt27283 for ; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 00:17:33 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e8MEHbk19757 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 10:17:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200009221417.e8MEHbk19757@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 10:17:37 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <002301c02466$4f611340$5d5608c3@dodona> from "Grattan Endicott" at Sep 22, 2000 07:52:31 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 Grattan Endicott writes: > From: Michael S. Dennis > > > > > > True, but I believe Todd's comments in this respect (as well as my own) > > concerned the proper behavior of a player who is sincerely concerned > > about avoiding UI, rather than the appropriate standard of evidence > > for a TD in evaluating such a case. And certainly a truly "random" > > approach in asking questions would avoid communicating UI, even if > > it wouldn't necessarily get you off the hook from the TD's perspective > > in any particular instance. > > > +=+ In truth the ideas about asking randomly and always asking > are largely bunkum. Proof by assertion is not proof. This point of view is at odds with (among others) Tony Forrester, Bobby Goldman, Jens Auken, Tommy Sandsmark and Tony Sowter. See Appeals Report 13 from Albuquerque. Quoting: "It is the opinion of the committee that you should always ask, for then nobody can find any pattern in asking. Since the appeal derived from an attempt to apply the EBU standards for questioning, the person who put the Appeals section into the book (I assume it was Tony Sowter, though it doesn't say explicitly) added "This ruling illustrates the dangers of individual NCBOs adopting regulations that are inconsistent with the international view." In context clearly taking aim at the idiosyncratic view the EBU has towards asking questions. (Though it is sound advice period -- and pretty clearly applies to the ACBL more that any other NCBO) > Partners are our familiars; they learn our twitches and our tones; they > look into our souls and know when we are interested. Absolutely true -- and has zip to do with asking of questions. Play with somebody for any length of time and you'll have received those vibes long before it comes time for questioning. It's *not* the asking of questions that transmits UI if you always ask. There can't be a meaningful signal transmitted in that context. Clearly even if you alway ask UI can be transmitted in the manner of the question. Separate issue. > So Directors ignore the plea that we ask randomly or always ask, EBU directors may do so. Indeed they seem to be instructed that way. Not the case in my experience in the ACBL -- and I'd imagine that most ACBLers on the list can confirm this. Speaking of which, I seem to recall a senior director in the ACBL (perhaps the ruling the games column) saying explicitly that the one certain way to avoid UI is to always ask. Can anybody confirm this? > they look at partner's action, see that > it may well have been influenced by the question, adjust the > score. And rightly so. The WBF says an AC needs clear and > convincing evidence to change the Director's verdict. I strongly suggest you re-think the matter here. -- RNJ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 23 01:10:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8MFA2127313 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 01:10:02 +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 e8MF9tt27309 for ; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 01:09:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d149.iae.nl [212.61.3.149]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 73BD420F1F for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 17:09:48 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <020001c024a7$5b228060$95033dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <005201c01c81$bdaa7e00$375408c3@dodona><002d01c017ff$db3d4960$abdd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com><4.3.2.7.1.20000913075856.00b2c590@127.0.0.1><3.0.6.32.20000913172338.008569c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000701c01e23$2a600b80$eb5608c3@dodona> <02f001c0220a$bf0706e0$576560cb@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] did insufficient to protect his own back ? Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 17:10:23 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 9:15 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] did insufficient to protect his own back ? > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > +=+ When replying to an 'opponent's inquiry ' > > Law 75C must be satisfied. It is carefully worded > > to apply to any inquiry about a call or play, and > > makes it an offence to reply only to the question > > as asked, omitting essential information which is > > not attributable to general knowledge and > > experience. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > And L75C directs us to the proper form of an enquiry found in L20. A player > may request a "full explaination". > > Therefore any fault from an improper question and a subsequent incomplete > answer surely must be shared between both sides. > > Wayne Burrows > I do not agree: Law 20 is about a RIGHT and LAW 40 and Law75 are about a DUTY. As such there is no relation between them. Even without an inquiry the duty still holds. Ben > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 23 01:16:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8MFG8o27330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Sep 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 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 e8MFG0t27326 for ; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 01:16:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from p9es09a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.121.159] helo=pacific) by cobalt5-ps.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13c6Dy-0001BR-00; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 14:17:14 +0100 Message-ID: <002c01c024a7$8ba29400$9f7993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ron Johnson" , References: <200009221417.e8MEHbk19757@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 16:08:04 +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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> ----- Original Message ----- From: Ron Johnson To: Sent: 22 September 2000 15:17 Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal > --------------------- \x/ ----------------- > > In context clearly taking aim at the idiosyncratic view the EBU has > towards asking questions. (Though it is sound advice period -- and > pretty clearly applies to the ACBL more that any other NCBO) > > +=+ I am unsure what view the current EBU L & E Committee holds. DWS is the one to speak to that (or Steve Barnfield, its Chairman).+=+ > > > they look at partner's action, see that > > it may well have been influenced by the question, adjust the > > score. And rightly so. The WBF says an AC needs clear and > > convincing evidence to change the Director's verdict. > > I strongly suggest you re-think the matter here. > +=+ Well, not I, 'clear and convincing' is the Advice of our General Counsel, bearing in mind that ACs are required to start from a presumption that the Director's ruling is correct. +=+ ~ 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 Sep 23 01:34:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8MFYYH27343 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 01:34:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8MFYSt27339 for ; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 01:34:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA16164; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 08:34:04 -0700 Message-Id: <200009221534.IAA16164@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 22 Sep 2000 10:17:37 PDT." <200009221417.e8MEHbk19757@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 08:34:02 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ron Johnson wrote: > Grattan Endicott writes: [snip] > > Partners are our familiars; they learn our twitches and our tones; they > > look into our souls and know when we are interested. > > Absolutely true -- and has zip to do with asking of questions. Play > with somebody for any length of time and you'll have received those > vibes long before it comes time for questioning. Right---it would appear that the only way to avoid transmitting this information is to sit absolutely motionless and quietly. No making spoken calls, no pulling cards out of the bidding box, since those actions could include twitches that would give partner information. No listening to the opponents' bidding, either. If you do, you risk hearing something you might react to, and your reaction might cause a muscle twitch that would give partner information about what's in your hand. But regarding the asking of questions, I think Grattan is just wrong here, because asking of questions is pretty much done habitually by a lot of players (at least in much of ACBL-land). As I noted previously, if my partner opened a strong club, RHO bid 2H, and LHO alerted, my immediate reaction would be to find out what it meant. This habit is so ingrained in me that it would be automatic; my first priority would be to find out what's going on, and I would not be thinking about my hand at all at that time---the desire to find out what the opponents are doing would push any thoughts about my hand out of my brain. I am absolutely serious about this. After I find out what I need to know (which usually involves asking a question, but may also involve looking at the CC or remembering what I had previously seen on the CC or such), and thank the opponents if necessary, *then* I go back to thinking about what I'm going to do with my hand. This is all so routine for me that there's no way partner can read anything into the question---I'm not thinking about my hand at the moment when I'm asking the question. But this is true because I live in an area where the development of such habits is moderately encouraged, and certainly not discouraged. In an area such as the EBU where they discourage people from developing the habit of "always asking", of course people don't develop that habit, and thus those who ask are more likely to be transmitting subliminal information. In effect, the result is a self-fulfilling prophecy; the EBU says only to ask when you're interested, so therefore people don't develop the habit of asking routinely, so therefore when people ask they do it in a way such that their partners can read something into it, and then EBU people see this and believe that's PROOF that their policy is the correct one and that other policies lead to ethical problems. Maybe *this* thread, and not the other one, should be called "merry-go-round" . . . -- 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 Sep 23 02:47:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8MGl7q27403 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 02:47:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tonnant.cnchost.com (tonnant.concentric.net [207.155.248.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8MGl1t27399 for ; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 02:47:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from [216.112.239.190] (w190.z216112239.nyc-ny.dsl.cnc.net [216.112.239.190]) by tonnant.cnchost.com id MAA17980; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 12:46:45 -0400 (EDT) [ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.10] Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200009221534.IAA16164@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200009221534.IAA16164@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 12:46:33 -0400 To: Adam Beneschan , Ted Ying From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 8:34 AM -0700 9/22/00, Adam Beneschan wrote: >But regarding the asking of questions, I think Grattan is just wrong >here, because asking of questions is pretty much done habitually by a >lot of players (at least in much of ACBL-land). Grattan's not exactly wrong, merely misinformed. I expect he is relying on Ted Ying's statement: "...in the ACBL, it is not ethical or encouraged to ask questions unless it has a direct bearing on your action." Many have noted that such is not the case in their part of the ACBL. I assert that Ted's statement is simply untrue. I'd have liked to bring this up earlier and perhaps save us all some time - I've been busy! Any ACBL tournament player is familiar with the "Alert!" - "Please explain" litany. In the ACBL I have never seen a player accused of making UI available through an immediate "Please explain" following an alert, nor do I expect to. Ted, can you refer us to an ACBL policy or regulation confirming your belief? >In an area such as the EBU where they discourage people from >developing the habit of "always asking", of course people don't >develop that habit, and thus those who ask are more likely to be >transmitting subliminal information. Things are certainly different in the EBU, as one can tell from section 3.4.1 of their "Orange Book" at http://www.ebu.co.uk/landec The "Orange Book" is a wonderful concept - I wish the ACBL had something similar. To the extent that I understand the EBU policy on questions after alerts I think it's a poor one. I wrote about this on the BLML six months ago - see the threads "Redress for N/S?" and "Ludicrous regulation?". Adam Wildavsky -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 23 02:54:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8MGsZm27424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 02:54:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8MGsQt27416 for ; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 02:54:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.24]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 09:54:40 -0700 Message-ID: <032d01c024b5$06cf3fe0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000914080035.00ab02d0@127.0.0.1> <003401c01e6d$d72700e0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> <004b01c0234f$8e011cc0$0200000a@mindspring.com> <39C9F4C8.89AB457A@village.uunet.be> <027201c0241f$ff60e460$189c1e18@san.rr.com> <39CB1282.B6430D9A@village.uunet.be> <000a01c0248f$85df48a0$d46693c3@pacific> Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 09:46:31 -0700 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: > But the French Connection should have been > satisfied with what Ton wrote. The WBFLC has > a minute to confirm the decision (published on > blml on a previous occasion). ~ G ~ +=+ I was satisfied that the interpretation existed (tho I somehow missed the Ton item). Just because I ask for a source does not necessarily mean I question a statement. I like to print out the WBFLC minutes containing interpretations and keep them in a notebook, as official amendments to the Laws rather than hearsay. When citing a WBFLC interpretation to Rich Colker or others in ACBL-land, I can't just say "Ton said so," or "Grattan said so," they won't accept that. I was unsubscribed from BLML for a long time because of family commitments that left me no time for BLML or RGB. I realize I am a nobody in the world of bridge, undeserving of any consideration, but would someone please e-mail me a copy of that published minute? The last WBFLC minutes I saw were those from Maastricht published by Grattan and Steve recently (for which, thanks). These reference minutes of 20 January 2000, and I suppose the subject interpretation of L12C1 was in those, but I missed out on them. I thought David S. was going to keep copies of LC minutes on his website, but all I see there are the minutes from Lille. Steve? David? Somebody? Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, 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 Sep 23 02:54:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8MGsap27425 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 02:54:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8MGsRt27417 for ; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 02:54:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.24]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 09:54:40 -0700 Message-ID: <032e01c024b5$07232c40$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000914080035.00ab02d0@127.0.0.1> <003401c01e6d$d72700e0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> <004b01c0234f$8e011cc0$0200000a@mindspring.com> <39C9F4C8.89AB457A@village.uunet.be> <027201c0241f$ff60e460$189c1e18@san.rr.com> <39CB1282.B6430D9A@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 09:49:03 -0700 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: > What is it Marv, don't you trust me ? > > And yet both David and Ton have also said this. > > But we don't remember where it was decided. > "Trust, but verify" is an American saying. :)) Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, 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 Sep 23 02:55:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8MGtTd27443 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 02:55:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8MGtMt27439 for ; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 02:55:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.117] (d185fca75.rochester.rr.com [24.95.202.117]) by mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA22868; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 12:52:08 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 12:50:02 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: [BLML] post-alerts Cc: Steve Willner Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner asked me to forward the question about post-alerts discussed here to the ACBL for a ruling. This is my message to them: >We have been discussing the ACBL requirement for post-alerts on the >bridge-laws mailing list, and there is some confusion about when the >rule goes into effect. The Alert Procedure on the ACBL web site, in >the subtitle to section X, refers to "Alertable bids above the level >of 3 NT starting with openers rebid". However, the language below >that is "Once the auction has progressed to the point that opener >has had the opportunity to make a rebid, no conventional calls at >the four level or higher should be Alerted until the auction is >over." The Alert Chart reiterates the statement in the subtitle, but >it also says that the procedure, not the chart, is definitive. Some >argue that "opener has had the opportunity to make a rebid" means >the rule goes into affect *after* that rebid. > >So, the question: if opener bids an alertable 4C at his second turn >to call, does that bid require an immediate alert, or a post alert? And this is Mike Flader's reply: >The example cited in your letter is a post-alert. So it would seem that post-alerts are to start with opener's rebid (if above 3NT). Further question: Does Mr. Flader's reply meet the requirements of full disclosure? :-) I have suggested, in a reply to Mr. Flader, that the language in the body of the post-alert section of the alert procedure ("once the auction has progressed...") ought to be changed, as it is unclear 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 23 03:40:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8MHeiQ27503 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 03:40:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8MHebt27499 for ; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 03:40:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis218.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.218]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.1999.06.13.00.20) with ESMTP id <0G1A00K96UF57P@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 19:40:32 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 19:40:15 +0200 From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director In-reply-to: <032e01c024b5$07232c40$189c1e18@san.rr.com> X-Sender: bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de To: "Marvin L. French" , Bridge Laws Message-id: <4.3.2.7.0.20000922193838.00a8af00@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1 References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000914080035.00ab02d0@127.0.0.1> <003401c01e6d$d72700e0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> <004b01c0234f$8e011cc0$0200000a@mindspring.com> <39C9F4C8.89AB457A@village.uunet.be> <027201c0241f$ff60e460$189c1e18@san.rr.com> <39CB1282.B6430D9A@village.uunet.be> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id e8MHeet27500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:49 22.09.2000 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >Herman de Wael wrote: > > > What is it Marv, don't you trust me ? > > > > And yet both David and Ton have also said this. > > > > But we don't remember where it was decided. > > > >"Trust, but verify" is an American saying. :)) It´s from Lenin (german: "Vertrauen ist gut, Kontrolle ist besser") :-))))) Richard PS: That´s typical for the german language, that you need 33 letters for the same expression that in english takes only 14... -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 23 04:20:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8MIKEx27531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 04:20:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8MIK5t27527 for ; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 04:20:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.24]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 11:20:18 -0700 Message-ID: <035401c024c0$f95fcda0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000922085129.00aaff00@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Merry-go-round Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 11:09:34 -0700 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 Eric Landau wrote: > > The ACBL regulation forbids you from altering your methods based on the > opponents' defences to them, but you are still free to use judgment. Just > because I announce that in first seat at favorable vulnerability I may > pre-empt on as little as seven small with 0 HCP doesn't mean that a pass > guarantees that I do not hold that hand. If I happen upon a rare pair who > plays penalty doubles of pre-empts, I am free to exercise my tactical > judgment and choose to pass with a hand that might pre-empt against most > other pairs, at least until I have done it consistently and often enough > with a particular partner that he can anticipate it (at which point it > becomes incorporated into our methods). > > The highly respected Eric Landau's opinions on this matter, expressed quite a while back, are what have kept me from pressing the ACBL to write a clearer regulation than the one now in the back of the Laws. Danny Kleinman has expressed similar opinions to me. I have been unable to come up with a well-worded regulation that solves this Chicken and Egg problem to their satisfaction. What bothers me about Eric's example above is that his cc section on preempts would be marked "Very Light." If he is not going to open a very light preempt, then I would not want to play semi-business doubles against him. Moreover, he is playing one method against me and another against others, which doesn't seem right. Well, if his partner is completely unaware of the tactic, maybe it's okay. Then it's also okay for weak notrumpers to tighten up a point or two against penalty doublers, and for light overcallers to pass with a weak suit with which they would normally overcall. My feeling at this time is that a player should be able to trust what s/he sees on an opposing cc, and that changing methods in accordance with anticipated countermeasures may be okay with a weak or first-time partner (who won't know, or allow for, the deviation from method), but not when playing with a partner who could possibly be on the lookout for it. Danny's opinion is stronger than Eric's. I think he would say, "Of course we would tighten up against penalty doublers, doing otherwise would be suicidal. My partner knows this, the opponents should know this, it is just commonsense bridge." What do I say to that? "But Danny, you can't legally change method on the basis of opposing countermeasures"? Unfortunately, a regulation that outlaws his stance would be impossible to enforce, making compliance a matter of good ethics. Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, 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 Sep 23 04:38:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8MIbxH27545 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 04:37:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8MIbrt27541 for ; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 04:37:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.24]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 11:38:06 -0700 Message-ID: <037101c024c3$757999a0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200009221417.e8MEHbk19757@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 11:32:06 -0700 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 Ron Johnson wrote: > > Speaking of which, I seem to recall a senior director in the ACBL > (perhaps the ruling the games column) saying explicitly that the > one certain way to avoid UI is to always ask. Can anybody confirm this? > I recall that also, but can't confirm it. Would it not then be appropriate for the ACBL to replace all Alerts with Announcements, with the proviso that opponents can ask to be Alerted instead? Think of all the time that would be saved and all the UI that would be avoided. Granted that an Announcment might not provide all the information an opponent needs, but usually it would. Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, 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 Sep 23 05:01:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8MJ1aT27567 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 05:01:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8MJ1Vt27563 for ; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 05:01:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.24]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 12:01:44 -0700 Message-ID: <037901c024c6$c204e880$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] post-alerts Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 11:55:59 -0700 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 Ed Reppert wrote: > > I have suggested, in a reply to Mr. Flader, that the language in the > body of the post-alert section of the alert procedure ("once the > auction has progressed...") ought to be changed, as it is unclear > Such suggestions should go to the C&C committee via the C&C Secretary Gary Blaiss, Chief Tournament Director of the ACBL. No doubt Mike Flader will pass it on to him, however. When saying something should be changed, you ought to have a suggested wording whenever possible. I suggest: "Starting with opener's second call..." The heading of the Alert Procedure (AP) section where this language occurs (page 13 of 16) has "...STARTING WITH OPENER'S REBID." This is not good, because opener might not rebid at his second turn. I don't think a pass, double, or redouble is a "rebid." Page 4 of 16 has the same words: "Starting with the opener's rebid," which should also be "Starting with opener's second call." C&C committee members may reply that the AP's intent is perfectly clear. It may be to them, and to me for that matter, but it must be clear to everyone, which it is not. Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, 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 Sep 23 06:09:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8MK8TD27608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 06:08:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.143]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8MK8Mt27604 for ; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 06:08:22 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e8MK89q26076; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 16:08:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200009222008.e8MK89q26076@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal To: adam@tameware.cnchost.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 16:08:09 -0400 (EDT) Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) In-Reply-To: from "Adam Wildavsky" at Sep 22, 2000 12:46:33 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 Okay, first, my apologies for opening such a Pandora's box by a hasty reply...also, please note, that I don't have a lot of time these days and so my replies to BLML may not be as timely as the voluminous replies. I'll answer as quickly as I can. > Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 12:46:33 -0400 > From: Adam Wildavsky > > At 8:34 AM -0700 9/22/00, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >But regarding the asking of questions, I think Grattan is just wrong > >here, because asking of questions is pretty much done habitually by a > >lot of players (at least in much of ACBL-land). > > Grattan's not exactly wrong, merely misinformed. I expect he is > relying on Ted Ying's statement: > > "...in the ACBL, it is not ethical or encouraged to ask questions > unless it has a direct bearing on your action." > Okay, my statement was far more extreme than it was originally intended. I hadn't noticed until so many people called me on the point. My problem is that as a player, a director, and a appeal committee member, I've noticed that so many of the problems are caused by inappropriate questioning. So, I think it should be a caution to only ask appropriate questions and not unnecessarily probing questions. I'm not trying to prevent anyone from making their appropriate judgements on the hand (ala Mr. Landau's contention) or from providing UI by asking only when in need of making a decision (as my statement erroneously implied), but to ensure that players do not ask inappropriate questions. Perhaps my experience of working with so many players that don't ask the right questions has made me "gun-shy" about the questions, but I've heard so many inappropriate questions, that I think I've become a touch of a UI-nazi and gone overboard here. I've heard so many "What does 3C show?" and "How many C's?" type of questions that I've gotten cynical. My apologies...and I'll retract my statement above to calm the waters. > Many have noted that such is not the case in their part of the ACBL. > I assert that Ted's statement is simply untrue. I'd have liked to > bring this up earlier and perhaps save us all some time - I've been > busy! > > Any ACBL tournament player is familiar with the "Alert!" - "Please > explain" litany. In the ACBL I have never seen a player accused of > making UI available through an immediate "Please explain" following > an alert, nor do I expect to. > My problem is that the consistency and nature of the questions given to players is often so variable. Perhaps in the top-level of bridge, players regularly "always ask" but I've found that even with the decent frequent-tournament types, the "always ask" is more like a 90% and sometimes very telling (and this from good players who know better). I've also found that "Please explain" happens most but not all of the time...and it's the lapses that give problems. But amongst our B and C level players, we often have people asking more telling questions. Perhaps we need a little better information to the players, but it's a frequent problem around here and along the mid-Atlantic, especially in the lower flights. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 23 06:19:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8MKIuj27625 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 06:18:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.143]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8MKIot27621 for ; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 06:18:51 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e8MKIh826209 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 16:18:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200009222018.e8MKIh826209@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 16:18:43 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <002401c02466$50553740$5d5608c3@dodona> from "Grattan Endicott" at Sep 22, 2000 08:07:46 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thanks, Grattan. That was my point. Although I understand the nature of L12C2 (which I do use regularly...sometimes I feel I assign more "split scores" for NOS and OS than others in my directing circle), my contention was where you could not necessarily determine which arbitrary score was more likely. My contention *IN THIS CASE* was that L12C1 applied where no result could be obtained. In the case, there were several possible outcomes of both contract and result. In answer to Mr. Landau's contention that if the likely results were 70, 80, and 90% results, that 60% would be unfair, I do agree...and would probably protect the NOS to a certain assigned score rather than an artificial score should the situation warrant. Grattan's explanation below phrases what I was thinking better than I did. -Ted. > From: "Grattan Endicott" > Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 08:07:46 +0100 > > > Ted Ying wrote: > > >Otherwise, you are arbitrarily assigning both a contract > > >and result and that should only be allowed when the > > >director can determine a reasonable and expected result. > > > > You say "should". OK. so you are entitled to think that that > > is the fairest way, but the Laws say that you do something else. > > Directors have to follow the Laws, whether they like it or not. > > The fact that some Directors don't, by giving A+/A-, doesn't > > make it right. My personal view is that the Laws' approach is > > slightly fairer than the approach that you suggest, but my personal > > view is irrelevant. The Laws specify a method so we must follow it. > > > +=+ But Ted has arrived at the point where > the weighted score is the developing solution. > The point where a number of potential results > are seen to exist and at which to allow > something for each of them is fairer than > to pick one - or an artificial score - and > thrust it upon the players. The argument for > showing the percentages is the case for > transparency, for letting the players see > and be helped to feel some effort has > been made to avoid the arbitrary. > ~ 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 Sep 23 06:49:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8MKngU27643 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 06:49:42 +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.iol.ie (mail1.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.192]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8MKnZt27639 for ; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 06:49:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-009.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.201]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA96383 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 21:49:24 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <000f01c024d7$ff6d5de0$c9307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 21:59:23 +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 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk South is Declarer. His last 2 cards are a Club and a Heart - both losers so he shows his two cards and concedes. West has a Club winner and a Diamond winner. East has a Heart winner and a Diamond winner. East admits to having revoked on a Heart trick at trick 5. East did not win the revoke trick and the only tricks E/W won were the last two tricks. The TD transfers 1 trick as per 64A2. South now points out, that had he known that East had revoked he would have played a Heart at trick 12 instead of conceding and now there would be a 2 trick transfer (64A1) since East would be winning a trick with a card he could have played to the revoke trick. How do you rule? 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 Sat Sep 23 06:58:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8MKwkB27656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 06:58:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8MKwdt27652 for ; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 06:58:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d202.iae.nl [212.61.3.202]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 85D1C20F42 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 22:58:34 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <02a401c024d8$1897a0a0$95033dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <005701c01d1a$d2c2a260$a0de36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <3.0.6.32.20000914124201.00860ca0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Singing in petto (was : Compulsory Pause over Preempt) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 19:44:38 +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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain, You could contribute to a MLML as well. Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "alain gottcheiner" To: "Ron Johnson" ; Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 12:42 PM Subject: [BLML] Singing in petto (was : Compulsory Pause over Preempt) > At 14:09 13/09/00 -0400, you wrote: > > > >People are completely hopeless at estimating time -- even as short as 5 > >seconds. Having said that, 5 seconds seems right. Long enough that the > >pause is basically unreadable. > > Try music (not aloud, of course). The tempo of 'Poor old Joe' or 'Kumbaya' > is exactly 1 beat per second, and the latter takes exactly 30 sec a verse. > The moment you've come to the second 'my Lord', 10 seconds have elapsed. If > the opponents took a whole verse to bid, it's too much. > > If you prefer classic, the time for one 'period' (up-then-down melody move) > of the main theme of Smetana's 'Vltava' (the Moldau) is fractionally more > than 10 seconds. > > 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 Sat Sep 23 07:17:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8MLH1M27677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 07:17:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8MLGtt27673 for ; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 07:16:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivet07.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.116.7]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA05407 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 17:16:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000922171638.01740de8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 17:16:38 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal In-Reply-To: <002c01c024a7$8ba29400$9f7993c3@pacific> References: <200009221417.e8MEHbk19757@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:08 PM 9/22/2000 +0100, Grattan wrote: >+=+ Well, not I, 'clear and convincing' is the Advice of our >General Counsel, bearing in mind that ACs are required >to start from a presumption that the Director's ruling is >correct. +=+ ~ G ~ +=+ Required? How so? No such requirement is stated in the Laws, which as far as I know are the _only_ universally binding requirements, upon AC's or anyone else in this game. Mike Dennis -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 23 07:41:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8MLeTU27691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 07:40:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tisch.mail.mindspring.net (tisch.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.157]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8MLeMt27687 for ; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 07:40:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivet07.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.116.7]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA15203 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 17:40:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000922174012.01887290@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 17:40:12 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke In-Reply-To: <000f01c024d7$ff6d5de0$c9307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:59 PM 9/22/2000 +0100, Fearghal wrote: >South is Declarer. His last 2 cards are a Club and a Heart - both losers so >he shows his two cards and concedes. West has a Club winner and a Diamond >winner. East has a Heart winner and a Diamond winner. > >East admits to having revoked on a Heart trick at trick 5. East did not win >the revoke trick and the only tricks E/W won were the last two tricks. > >The TD transfers 1 trick as per 64A2. South now points out, that had he >known that East had revoked he would have played a Heart at trick 12 instead >of conceding and now there would be a 2 trick transfer (64A1) since East >would be winning a trick with a card he could have played to the revoke >trick. > >How do you rule? > If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. What South might have done, had he known something that he didn't know at the time he conceded, is irrelevant. The fact is, South's concession of the last two tricks stands, unless one of the conditions of L71 are satisfied. They are not. After the play of the hand, the director rules on the revoke. Did East win a trick with a card he could have played to the revoke trick? He did not. EW did not win either of the last two tricks, as play ceased as of the concession. Rather they were awarded those tricks by rule, and one was transferred back to South as lawful compensation for the revoke. 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 Sat Sep 23 08:27:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8MMQX627718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 08:26:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8MMQRt27714 for ; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 08:26:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.191] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13cbGy-0002IH-00; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 23:26:24 +0100 Message-ID: <001e01c024e4$49dc6d60$bf5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" References: <200009221417.e8MEHbk19757@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> <3.0.1.32.20000922171638.01740de8@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 23:26:32 +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: Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 10:16 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal > At 04:08 PM 9/22/2000 +0100, Grattan wrote: > >+=+ Well, not I, 'clear and convincing' is the Advice of our > >General Counsel, bearing in mind that ACs are required > >to start from a presumption that the Director's ruling is > >correct. +=+ ~ G ~ +=+ > > Required? How so? No such requirement is stated in the Laws, which as far > as I know are the _only_ universally binding requirements, upon AC's or > anyone else in this game. > +=+ Required of WBF Appeals Committees as laid down in the WBF Code of Practice. And of European Bridge League ACs, the EBL having adopted the Code also in its regulations. +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 23 09:35:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8MNYl827750 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 09:34:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8MNYbt27746 for ; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 09:34:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8MGhO007451 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 16:43:24 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 16:30:01 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <3.0.1.32.20000922174012.01887290@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000922174012.01887290@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00092216432402.07260@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Michael S. Dennis wrote: > At 09:59 PM 9/22/2000 +0100, Fearghal wrote: > >South is Declarer. His last 2 cards are a Club and a Heart - both losers so > >he shows his two cards and concedes. West has a Club winner and a Diamond > >winner. East has a Heart winner and a Diamond winner. > > > >East admits to having revoked on a Heart trick at trick 5. East did not win > >the revoke trick and the only tricks E/W won were the last two tricks. > If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. What South might have done, had > he known something that he didn't know at the time he conceded, is > irrelevant. The fact is, South's concession of the last two tricks stands, > unless one of the conditions of L71 are satisfied. They are not. After the > play of the hand, the director rules on the revoke. Did East win a trick > with a card he could have played to the revoke trick? He did not. EW did > not win either of the last two tricks, as play ceased as of the concession. > Rather they were awarded those tricks by rule, and one was transferred back > to South as lawful compensation for the revoke. I don't think this justification is valid, because it would apply equally well if East was guaranteed to win one of the last two tricks with a heart (for example, in the same situation as above, but hearts are trumps and East has the high trump). I do agree with the final ruling in this case. South conceded a trick which he could not have lost by any legal play (the first transferred trick), so he gets that trick back. He also conceded a trick which he could have lost by normal play (the second transferred trick; it is normal for declarer to play a club in this situation), so he does not get that trick back. This is different from the revoke-then-claim discussions we have had before, in which a claim (or its statement) depended on an opponent being void of a suit in which he had revoked. In those cases, the claim was a direct consequence of the revoke, and therefore we give the benefit of the doubt to the non-revoking side rather than the non-claming side in determining the likely result. The concession here did not depend on the revoke, as declarer had no tricks to take no matter how the cards were distributed. -- Sincerely, David Grabiner, grabiner@math.la.asu.edu Department of Mathematics, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1804 http://math.la.asu.edu/~grabiner Phone: (480)965-3745 (work), (480)517-1674 (home). Fax: (480)965-8119. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 23 10:53:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8N0qYS27783 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 10:52:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8N0qSt27779 for ; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 10:52:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.24]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 17:52:42 -0700 Message-ID: <03ae01c024f7$beb18180$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200009211551.LAA27658@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Merry-go-round Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 17:46:39 -0700 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 Willner wrote: > In general, though, I think L80F allows SO's to regulate or prohibit > changes in system during a session or indeed during a whole event. Is > there anything in the Laws forbidding such a regulation? > The ACBL seems to think that L40E is their justification for the "ELECTION" prohibiting change of system, since they cite it there. L40E's words about ccs, that an SO "may establish regulations for its use" should certainly include the authority to say you can't change the cc during a session. I don't see anything in the Laws that says otherwise. The ending of L40E might be pertinent: "(such a regulation must not restrict style and judgment, only method)". This is what Eric and others cite as permitting them to adjust the strength of calls on the basis of anticipated countermeasures. Perhaps, but IMO not if the adjustment violates what appears on the cc. I guess what I'm saying is that once an initial action is described on the cc, that action can be varied by "style and judgment," but only to the extent that it does not conflict with what is on the cc. It could be argued that the cc describes a method only in a general way, with judgmental and stylistic deviations that modify the description permitted by L40E. I don't think so. The cc should be accurate as to the methods used. I could specify "light overcalls," but not make a light overcall against penalty doublers without suit solidity. That is a judgment that doesn't conflict with the cc. Nevertheless, I think it's wrong if the sole reason is the fear of a penalty double. "Style and judgment" deviations should be based on such things as the state of the score, the skill of one's partner and opponents, things like that, and should not be based on fear of a countermeasure used by the opposition. Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, 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 Sep 23 11:48:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8N1mQd27820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 11:48:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from warspite.cnchost.com (warspite.concentric.net [207.155.248.9]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8N1mKt27816 for ; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 11:48:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from [216.112.239.190] (w190.z216112239.nyc-ny.dsl.cnc.net [216.112.239.190]) by warspite.cnchost.com id VAA13617; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 21:48:15 -0400 (EDT) [ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.10] Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <91.c45c3c.26fa1fd9@aol.com> References: <91.c45c3c.26fa1fd9@aol.com> Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 21:14:32 -0400 To: Schoderb@aol.com From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] Now about Maastricht appeal 14 Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:12 AM -0400 9/20/00, Kojak wrote: >In looking at the text of "at 8:24 PM Kojak wrote:" I find a sentence that is >not mine. "As I told you in Maastricht I thought the TD decisions were >excellent, the best I can remember, and certainly better than the committee >decisions." That sentence was mine, which is why I didn't quote it. I was reminding you of a conversation we had in Maastricht. I certainly had no intention of attributing the statement to you, and I apologize if it appears that I did. Adam Wildavsky -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 23 13:07:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8N36kO27856 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 13:06:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from devonshire.cnchost.com (devonshire.concentric.net [207.155.248.12]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8N36et27852 for ; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 13:06:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from [216.112.239.190] (w190.z216112239.nyc-ny.dsl.cnc.net [216.112.239.190]) by devonshire.cnchost.com id XAA11282; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 23:06:33 -0400 (EDT) [ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.10] Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <004301c022fc$10eacc20$ac5593c3@pacific> References: <004301c022fc$10eacc20$ac5593c3@pacific> Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 21:57:30 -0400 To: "Grattan Endicott" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] Now about Maastricht appeal 14 Cc: Bill Schoder , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 1:11 PM +0100 9/20/00, Grattan wrote: >+=+ See the attached note, if you can make time for it :-)) I've only just been able to make the time. Here goes: >I read the emails by Kojak and Adam Wildawsky with some disappointment. Sorry to disappoint! And it's "Wildavsky". >What disappoints me is that merely to designate appeals decisions as >'good', 'poor' and so on, is not constructive and does nothing to >help me in the current task of drafting for the consideration of the >quadruplets the material for the 'Jurisprudence'. I understand, but I think you've taken my post of out context. In particular I wrote: >>The specifics of any of these appeals I think are best discussed in >>a separate thread, but I'm happy indicate the direction of my >>thoughts. I will be delighted to post my thoughts on Appeal 14 and any others, if I feel I can contribute something useful to the discussion. I won't do so nearly so often as I'd like to - there are only so many hours in a day. While I consider BLML important I also have a living to earn and perhaps even an occasional game of bridge to play. >Since it (12C3) is the policy people who now sound off about it are >taking their eyes off the ball. If you mean those who criticize without giving reasons then I'd have to agree. For those of us who have supplied reasons (and I have more to come, believe me) what forum would be more appropriate than the BLML? I hope you realize that when I rail against 12C3 I am not suggesting that it be ignored where it is part of the law, rather I am suggesting that the law be changed. >So what I would ask is that criticisms of the actions of appeals >committees should say clearly how it is suggested the committee has >not conformed to its remit or how it has failed properly to diagnose >and redress, in relation to its given task and the intentions of the >CoP. That's hard to argue with, and I think that's been the intent of most posters. >I also ask that we deploy argument within the current terms of >reference. In this way I shall be helped in my quest for >constructive opinions that can assist the progress of the new order. Certainly when one argues with a decision one must take into account the laws and practices of the jurisdiction in which it arose. I have attempted to keep my criticism of 12C3 separate from criticism of 12C3 decisions - please let me know if I've failed in that attempt. Adam Wildavsky -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 23 15:35:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8N5Yqw27910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 15:34:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thunderer.cnchost.com (thunderer.concentric.net [207.155.252.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8N5Yjt27906 for ; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 15:34:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from [216.112.239.190] (w190.z216112239.nyc-ny.dsl.cnc.net [216.112.239.190]) by thunderer.cnchost.com id BAA29131; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 01:34:42 -0400 (EDT) [ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.10] Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000917194056.008794f0@worldcom.ch> References: <3.0.6.32.20000914190338.00872bf0@worldcom.ch> <200009122221.SAA10404@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200009122221.SAA10404@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.6.32.20000914190338.00872bf0@worldcom.ch> <3.0.6.32.20000917194056.008794f0@worldcom.ch> Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 01:34:25 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: [BLML] Maastrict #19 (was Maastrict Appeals online) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 7:03 PM +0200 9/14/00, Yvan Calame wrote: >Maastrict Appeals are online at: > >http://home.worldcom.ch/fsb/appealse.html The writeup of #19 which was posted on RGB included the following comment from Bobby Wolff, the committee chair: >Comment: The parameters in determining "mistaken bid" or "mistaken >explanation" are so subjective and clouded that everyone involved in the >decision process can have the reasoning and conclusion of their choice and >thus can have the power to rule for whom they want. This makes the justice >process rife for bias. We must change it. Bobby Wolff. I don't understand. Is this not covered by the footnote to Law 75? It reads in part "the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary." Would anyone care to speculate as to what Bobby is getting at? The writeup says in part >Some members found that East/West had fallen short of their attempts >to prove the system, but other members found the explanation to be >fully consistent and natural. As I understand this footnote East/West's explanation is not evidence, so I don't comprehend the reasoning of the committee majority. AW -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 23 17:11:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8N7B8X27955 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 17:11:08 +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 e8N7B1t27951 for ; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 17:11:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.97] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13cjSY-0007u7-00; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 08:10:55 +0100 Message-ID: <000601c0252d$903ac2e0$615408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Adam Wildavsky" Cc: "Bill Schoder" , References: <004301c022fc$10eacc20$ac5593c3@pacific> Subject: Re: [BLML] Now about Maastricht appeal 14 Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 06:28:52 +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: Grattan Endicott Cc: Bill Schoder ; Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2000 2:57 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Now about Maastricht appeal 14 > Sorry to disappoint! And it's "Wildavsky". > +=+ Apology. Old age excuses much. Hope I do not begin to have the difficulty with names that I have with attaching faces to 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 Sat Sep 23 22:18:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8NCFh428053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 22:15:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8NCFct28049 for ; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 22:15:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id oa308868 for ; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 22:10:33 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-010-p-223-175.tmns.net.au ([203.54.223.175]) by mail5.bigpond.com (Claudes-Emotive-MailRouter V2.9b 9/2488010); 23 Sep 2000 22:10:32 Message-ID: <001201c024fb$2bcb2a20$afdf36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 11:11:13 +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 Dennis wrote: >>Grattan wrote: >>>+=+ Well, not I, 'clear and convincing' is the Advice of our >>>General Counsel, bearing in mind that ACs are required >>>to start from a presumption that the Director's ruling is >>>correct. +=+ ~ G ~ +=+ >> >> Required? How so? No such requirement is stated in the Laws, >>which as far as I know are the _only_ universally binding >>requirements, upon AC's or anyone else in this game. >> >+=+ Required of WBF Appeals Committees >as laid down in the WBF Code of Practice. And >of European Bridge League ACs, the EBL >having adopted the Code also in its regulations. +=+ The beginning of the CoP says: "The WBF adopts the following standards as regulations for the conduct of appeals from decisions of TDs and recommends their adoption to each affiliated Oganisation." I wonder which SOs have adopted the CoP? 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 Sep 23 23:13:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8NDCAX28083 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 23:12:10 +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 e8NDC4t28079 for ; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 23:12:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivet8c.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.117.12]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA31882 for ; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 09:11:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000923091155.0198bc9c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 09:11:55 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke In-Reply-To: <00092216432402.07260@psa836> References: <3.0.1.32.20000922174012.01887290@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20000922174012.01887290@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:30 PM 9/22/2000 +0000, David G wrote: >On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Michael S. Dennis wrote: >> If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. What South might have done, had >> he known something that he didn't know at the time he conceded, is >> irrelevant. The fact is, South's concession of the last two tricks stands, >> unless one of the conditions of L71 are satisfied. They are not. After the >> play of the hand, the director rules on the revoke. Did East win a trick >> with a card he could have played to the revoke trick? He did not. EW did >> not win either of the last two tricks, as play ceased as of the concession. >> Rather they were awarded those tricks by rule, and one was transferred back >> to South as lawful compensation for the revoke. > >I don't think this justification is valid, because it would apply >equally well if East was guaranteed to win one of the last two tricks >with a heart (for example, in the same situation as above, but hearts >are trumps and East has the high trump). Yes, but what's your point? >I do agree with the final ruling in this case. South conceded a trick >which he could not have lost by any legal play (the first transferred >trick), so he gets that trick back. He also conceded a trick which he >could have lost by normal play (the second transferred trick; it is >normal for declarer to play a club in this situation), so he does not >get that trick back. Your confusion (and that of the South player) arises over the distinction between a trick won and a trick transferred. South could not, by any sequence of plays, win any more tricks in the given position. I am using "win" here in the precise sense of Laws 44 E and F. Indeed, identifying the transferred trick(s) as tricks "won" by South presents a pretty paradox: If we argue that South could have "won" an extra trick (i.e., both of the last two) by playing his heart at trick 12, then it could no longer be the case that East could have "won" that trick, hence only a one-trick transfer after all. Hmm... Fortunately the Laws provide a clear definition for how a trick may be won, and there is no need to confuse this with tricks transferred as adjustments or penalties. A TD may assign an adjusted score of N/S +420 owing to an infraction by E/W, but we should not delude ourselves that this means that N/S took ten tricks at a major suit game contract. 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 Sat Sep 23 23:42:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8NDgSC28108 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 23:42:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8NDgKt28099 for ; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 23:42:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ta310433 for ; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 23:38:12 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-004-p-215-85.tmns.net.au ([203.54.215.85]) by mail5.bigpond.com (Claudes-Ovine-MailRouter V2.9b 9/2501944); 23 Sep 2000 23:38:11 Message-ID: <010d01c02507$6a03b300$afdf36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Now about Maastricht appeal 14 Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 12:13:00 +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 Adam Wildavsky wrote: >Grattan Endicott wrote; >>+=+ See the attached note, if you can make time for it :-)) > >I've only just been able to make the time. Here goes: > >>I read the emails by Kojak and Adam Wildavsky with some disappointment. > >>What disappoints me is that merely to designate appeals >>decisions as 'good', 'poor' and so on, is not constructive >>and does nothing to help me in the current task of drafting >>for the consideration of the quadruplets the material for the >>'Jurisprudence'. I for one enjoyed reading Adam's original post. I thought it was a totally appropriate posting for a discussion group. It triggered me to have another look at some of the appeals he mentioned, and to notice things which I missed during my first reading. Adam's posts can't be expected to help everyone. >I understand, but I think you've taken my post of out context. In >particular I wrote: > >>>The specifics of any of these appeals I think are best discussed >>>in a separate thread, but I'm happy indicate the direction of my >>>thoughts. > >I will be delighted to post my thoughts on Appeal 14 and any others, >if I feel I can contribute something useful to the discussion. I >won't do so nearly so often as I'd like to - there are only so many >hours in a day. While I consider BLML important I also have a living >to earn and perhaps even an occasional game of bridge to play. > >>Since it (12C3) is the policy people who now sound off about it are >>taking their eyes off the ball. > >If you mean those who criticize without giving reasons then I'd have >to agree. For those of us who have supplied reasons (and I have more >to come, believe me) what forum would be more appropriate than the >BLML? I hope you realize that when I rail against 12C3 I am not >suggesting that it be ignored where it is part of the law, rather I >am suggesting that the law be changed. Does Grattan also think that discussions criticising Law 25B (which also is/was the policy) shouldn't have happened on BLML? I think that BLML should be a forum where criticism commonly occurs and we readers can decide for ourselves whether the criticism is valid. Critical discussion of Law 12C3 seems to me to be very useful, considering that some SOs have, and some have not, adopted the CoP. Criticising Law 25B seemed even less useful, since at the time L25B seemed like a fait accompli, yet that criticism in hindsight proved to be useful. >>So what I would ask is that criticisms of the actions of appeals >>committees should say clearly how it is suggested the committee >>has not conformed to its remit or how it has failed properly to >>diagnose and redress, in relation to its given task and the >>intentions of the CoP. Whilst you're entitled to ask for that, I, being one of many BLML subscribers, would ask for something else, i.e. that posters should feel free to criticise appeals intelligently, and that the AC members should not take it personally. On these (my, i.e. one of hundreds of subscibers') criteria, Adam's original post IMO was interesting, constructive and useful. >That's hard to argue with, and I think that's been the intent >of most posters. > >>I also ask that we deploy argument within the current terms of >>reference. In this way I shall be helped in my quest for >>constructive opinions that can assist the progress of the new order. Yes this would be ideal, but in the real world some of us write, and inevitably will continue to write, our thoughts onto BLML without thinking much about the consequences. >Certainly when one argues with a decision one must take into >account the laws and practices of the jurisdiction in which it >arose. I have attempted to keep my criticism of 12C3 separate >from criticism of 12C3 decisions - please let me know if I've >failed in that attempt. 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 Sep 23 23:42:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8NDgSN28107 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 23:42:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8NDgKt28100 for ; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 23:42:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id sa310432 for ; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 23:38:10 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-004-p-215-85.tmns.net.au ([203.54.215.85]) by mail5.bigpond.com (Claudes-Home-Grown-MailRouter V2.9b 9/2501944); 23 Sep 2000 23:38:09 Message-ID: <010c01c02507$693a4880$afdf36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastrict #19 (was Maastrict Appeals online) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 11:47:24 +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 Adam Wildavsky wrote: >The writeup of #19 which was posted on RGB included the >following comment from Bobby Wolff, the committee chair: > >>Comment: The parameters in determining "mistaken bid" >>or "mistaken explanation" are so subjective and clouded >>that everyone involved in the decision process can have >>the reasoning and conclusion of their choice and thus can >>have the power to rule for whom they want. This makes the >>justice process rife for bias. We must change it. Bobby Wolff. > >I don't understand. Is this not covered by the footnote to Law 75? >It reads in part "the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, >rather than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary." > >Would anyone care to speculate as to what Bobby is getting at? >The writeup says in part > >>Some members found that East/West had fallen short of their >>attempts to prove the system, but other members found the >>explanation to be fully consistent and natural. > >As I understand this footnote East/West's explanation is not >evidence, so I don't comprehend the reasoning of the committee >majority. You asked for speculation. Here goes... Perhaps Bobby is referring to the lack of definition of "evidence". My dictionary (Chambers) describes "evidence" as including 'support for a belief, ... testimony, ...". Thus if EW say that it was a mistaken explanation, then there has been "evidence" of a mistaken explanation. My miniscule knowledge of law includes that in court cases, evidence is heard to support each side's case. Perhaps evidence doesn't necessarily have to be non-self-serving verifiable evidence. Could this be what he meant? That the footnote is not enough because it doesn't put any adjective in front of the word evidence, so its meaning is vague? Not they my adjectives are any good; they're just the first two that popped into my head. Guessingly, 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 Sep 24 00:32:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8NEVmD28147 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 00:31:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8NEVct28139 for ; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 00:31:39 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id PAA26410 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 15:31:30 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 15:31 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Alas, Poor Yorick, I Knew Him Well... 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: Oops, I carelessly said.. (as was pointed out to me) > Players are supposed to bid as if the UI was absent. If partner > has already What I meant was players are supposed to consider the meaning of the auction absent UI in order to determine LAs and then bid accordingly. If the auction has a single possible meaning (in the pair's supposed methods) there are likely to be very few LAs. Obviously if multiple LAs exist they still need to avoid bidding an LA which is suggested by the UI. If there is only one possible systemic bid and no LAs (as I was speculating was possible given certain methods) then they are indeed supposed to bid as if the UI was absent. 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 Sun Sep 24 00:32:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8NEVm828146 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 00:31:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8NEVct28138 for ; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 00:31:39 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id PAA26402 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 15:31:29 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 15:31 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Five-and-a-half card majors 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: <3.0.6.32.20000919144456.007d7dd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> agot@ulb.ac.be wrote: > >But only the opinion of the bidder is important. It can only be a > >psyche if it is an attempt to distort the hand. If the bidder > thinks >it is the most descriptive bid it cannot be a psyche. > > AG : a very interesting view indeed. I would very much like to see > it integrated in jurisprudency. It would be quite useful. Is this > conceivable ? I thought it was! Isn't a psyche defined as a gross and deliberate distortion? If a player is making the bid that he thinks describes the hand it surely cannot be deliberate distortion. If I open an Acol 2C on AKJxxxxxx,x,x,KQ it is a psyche. This has nothing like the defensive strength I need. If my wife opens it 2C it is because she can count 10 tricks=game in a major=open 2C. 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 Sun Sep 24 07:55:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8NLrpY28397 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 07:53:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wellington.cnchost.com (wellington.concentric.net [207.155.252.14]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8NLrit28393 for ; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 07:53:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from [216.112.239.190] (w190.z216112239.nyc-ny.dsl.cnc.net [216.112.239.190]) by wellington.cnchost.com id RAA09899; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 17:53:39 -0400 (EDT) [ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.10] Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <39B741F0.5019E705@mindspring.com> References: <39B741F0.5019E705@mindspring.com> Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 17:52:30 -0400 To: "John R. Mayne" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] Alas, Poor Yorick, I Knew Him Well... Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:21 AM -0700 9/7/00, John R. Mayne wrote: >But I think -1600 is an appropriate adjustment here. Anyone with me, or >am I alone on this rock? Excellent point - I'd have missed it had you not mentioned it. -1600 is surely "at all probable" and might well be one of the likely results, in the absence of the illegal 3D. This being matchpoints, -800 and -1600 likely resulted in the same score. This means that even though I consider redouble a LA I would adjust had South redoubled and North taken it out. If not for the possibility of a runout I'd admire a player who redoubled at the table. Adam Wildavsky -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 24 07:59:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8NLxMV28410 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 07:59:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wellington.cnchost.com (wellington.concentric.net [207.155.252.14]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8NLxFt28406 for ; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 07:59:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from [216.112.239.190] (w190.z216112239.nyc-ny.dsl.cnc.net [216.112.239.190]) by wellington.cnchost.com id RAA11854; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 17:58:48 -0400 (EDT) [ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.10] Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <008701c01796$62ae57a0$b1d536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> References: <008701c01796$62ae57a0$b1d536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 17:58:37 -0400 To: "Peter Gill" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] Alas, Poor Yorick, I Knew Him Well... Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:07 AM +1000 9/6/00, Peter Gill wrote: >(3) My only concern is the widespread practice, even at the highest >levels of: "I determined that the explanation given did correspond to >the CC, therefore no MI." This procedure is risky because often one >member of a partnership fills in the CC so the entry thereon reflects >only the understanding of that one player rather than the agreement >of both players. I'm just trying to say that I think this procedure by >the Director, without asking the player whose handwriting is not on the >CC, can lead to error. Not that this it did in this case. The ACBL requires two identically filled in cards. I've always thought that if there's only one we must presume that the other would have been different, and so rule MI. I have never seen a director rule that way, though. If a pair displays two identical CCs, even if one's a photocopy of the other, I think we must assume that they have agreed to play what's on the CCs, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Adam Wildavsky -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 24 09:48:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8NNmPL28498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 09:48:25 +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-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 e8NNmBt28484 for ; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 09:48:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13cz1X-00069M-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 23:48:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 23:33:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Alas, Poor Yorick, I Knew Him Well... 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: >Players are supposed to bid as if the UI was absent. Oh no, they are not!!!!! L73C makes it clear that they must go further than 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 Sun Sep 24 09:48:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8NNmNG28496 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 09:48:23 +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-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 e8NNmBt28486 for ; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 09:48:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13cz1Y-00069O-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 23:48:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 00:12:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Falsecards after hesitation References: <4.3.2.7.0.20000922094359.00b25c60@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20000922094359.00b25c60@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Bley wrote: >Hi all, >this e-Mail took some strange way to my desktop (original E-Mail from Dirk >Willecke; resonse from David Stevenson). Oh dear! I wonder what response Dirk got - and for whom it was intended! -- 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 Sun Sep 24 09:48:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8NNmOg28497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 09:48:25 +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-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 e8NNmBt28485 for ; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 09:48:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13cz1Y-00069N-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 23:48:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 23:44:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000914080035.00ab02d0@127.0.0.1> <003401c01e6d$d72700e0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> <004b01c0234f$8e011cc0$0200000a@mindspring.com> <39C9F4C8.89AB457A@village.uunet.be> <027201c0241f$ff60e460$189c1e18@san.rr.com> <39CB1282.B6430D9A@village.uunet.be> <000a01c0248f$85df48a0$d46693c3@pacific> <032d01c024b5$06cf3fe0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <032d01c024b5$06cf3fe0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >I was satisfied that the interpretation existed (tho I somehow missed >the Ton item). Just because I ask for a source does not necessarily >mean I question a statement. I like to print out the WBFLC minutes >containing interpretations and keep them in a notebook, as official >amendments to the Laws rather than hearsay. When citing a WBFLC >interpretation to Rich Colker or others in ACBL-land, I can't just say >"Ton said so," or "Grattan said so," they won't accept that. > >I was unsubscribed from BLML for a long time because of family >commitments that left me no time for BLML or RGB. I realize I am a >nobody in the world of bridge, undeserving of any consideration, but >would someone please e-mail me a copy of that published minute? > >The last WBFLC minutes I saw were those from Maastricht published by >Grattan and Steve recently (for which, thanks). These reference >minutes of 20 January 2000, and I suppose the subject interpretation >of L12C1 was in those, but I missed out on them. I thought David S. >was going to keep copies of LC minutes on his website, but all I see >there are the minutes from Lille. > >Steve? David? Somebody? O ye of little faith!!!!! It was from Lille: it is on my website: see http://blakjak.com/law_llle 4: Consideration was given to the meaning of 'average minus' where used in Law 12C1. Having debated the options, the Committee held that 'average minus' means the player's session percentage or 40% whichever is the lower. Aha! Perhaps you mean the 60% one? That is more difficult because that was at M'cht. I was not intending to put full minutes on my page - though perhaps it would be sensible - preferring a synopsis as at Lille, if someone would write one. Now, where are the minutes from M'cht? -- 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 Sun Sep 24 10:06:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8O06DZ28527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 10:06:13 +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 e8O067t28523 for ; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 10:06:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.19] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13czIy-000OjM-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 01:06:04 +0100 Message-ID: <002b01c025bb$617d7d60$135608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200009030027.UAA16815@cfa183.harvard.edu><3.0.1.32.20000903211244.013e8cc8@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Lightner strikes Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 01:05:52 +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: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 12:46 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Lightner strikes +=+ In my deleted items folder I had all these unread messages headed 'Lightner Strikes'. I had deleted them as a subject. Sat/Sun, September 23/24, I am on-site referee for English Trials Phase 2A; I am given an extra-curricular duty - would you convene and chair an AC to deal with this appeal from Crockfords' Cup. Ah, well, sometimes you get lucky when you press the button on something you don't want to hear about. ~ 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 Sep 24 10:32:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8O0WHM28556 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 10:32:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wellington.cnchost.com (wellington.concentric.net [207.155.252.14]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8O0WBt28552 for ; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 10:32:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from [216.112.239.190] (w190.z216112239.nyc-ny.dsl.cnc.net [216.112.239.190]) by wellington.cnchost.com id UAA10097; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 20:32:07 -0400 (EDT) [ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.10] Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <004901c017a7$d8f9ca00$1fe136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> References: <004901c017a7$d8f9ca00$1fe136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 19:31:17 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Alerts Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:12 PM +1000 9/6/00, Peter Gill wrote: >Just thought I'd post some current material about the ACBL >Alert Procedures, mostly from the COI's website. Even though >some BLMLers won't be interested, a few North Americans >might find it interesting: ... >Barbara Seagram of Toronto asks that the Board not make any >changes at this time. It has become increasingly difficult to teach >the game of bridge because of all the complexities. Directing the >game is very tough because of all the rules and the constant revisions >in the Alert/Announce procedure. The average club player is SO >weary of changes in procedure. Studying new systems and trying to >keep up with changes in structure in modern bridge bidding is tough >enough. Many simply give up, exhausted and discouraged. We have >no problem attracting new members. To get them to renew is almost >impossible, with so much competing for their energies and time. I'm with Barbara on this one. I think the ACBL consistently underestimates the costs in changing procedures. Rather than tweaking the Alert system I'd suggest scrapping it completely in favor of something substantially simpler. On the other hand, I have no better system to propose. Any takers? >Joan Gerard explained: The reasoning behind the expansion of >the 1NT Announcement was that right now so many people ask >what is your range? when they don t hear an Announcement. I always call the director when this happens. UI is now present, which may or may not affect the hand. I had great misgivings about the introduction of Announcements. Sure enough many players abuse them, intentionally or otherwise. Overall, though, I find that they have had a beneficial effect on the game, at any rate at the Flight A level. The announcements for Weak NTs are especially welcome. Sheinwold gave up the weak NT because his opponents could convey so much information by grabbing the convention card or asking about the range. (Still quoting Joan:) >I find that the vast majority of the average players do what they want >at the table and no one really cares." Too true. I don't believe that more complex procedures will solve this problem. Adam Wildavsky -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 24 10:43:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8O0h9H28576 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 10:43:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8O0h3t28572 for ; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 10:43:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.24]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 17:40:39 -0700 Message-ID: <001001c025bf$7de03200$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Alas, Poor Yorick, I Knew Him Well... Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 17:32:51 -0700 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 From: "Tim West-meads" < > Oops, I carelessly said.. (as was pointed out to me) > > > Players are supposed to bid as if the UI was absent. If partner > > has already > > What I meant was players are supposed to consider the meaning of the > auction absent UI in order to determine LAs and then bid accordingly. > If the auction has a single possible meaning (in the pair's supposed > methods) there are likely to be very few LAs. Obviously if multiple > LAs exist they still need to avoid bidding an LA which is suggested by > the UI. The use of LA in this manner is confusing, and seems to becoming widespread. A call (one or more) demonstrably suggested by the UI is not an LA. Calls not suggested are alternatives, one or more of which may be logical. Aside from that, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying (my fault, no doubt). How about a decision tree? Does the UI demonstrably suggest one or more actions to you? No Do what you wish. Yes Are there one or more logical alternatives to what is suggested? Yes Take one, any one. No Do what you wish. Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, 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 Sun Sep 24 11:02:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8O11oL28594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 11:01:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8O11it28590 for ; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 11:01:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from rwilleypc (csdial4.isi.com [192.103.52.195]) by mailout.isi.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3/Mailout 991117 TroyC) with SMTP id RAA13378 for ; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 17:51:17 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard Willey" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] ACBL Alerts Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 21:04:44 -0400 Message-ID: <000c01c025c3$6cc564a0$c33467c0@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'm with Barbara on this one. I think the ACBL consistently > underestimates the costs in changing procedures. Rather than > tweaking the Alert system I'd suggest scrapping it completely in > favor of > something substantially simpler. On the other hand, I have no > better system to propose. Any takers? Certainly. I think that the ACBL would benefit if they adopted a more systematic approach towards alerting and bridge education. The ACBL should define a standard bridge system. Presumably, since this would be primarily used in North American, the system would be grounded in 5 card majors and a 15-17 HCP 1NT opening. However, I don't really care what they system was, as long as it is designed to be easy to teach and playable. Defining this system will serve two primary purposes. Firm and foremost, this system will define "standard bidding". If a player makes a bid whose systemic meaning is different from Standard American Purple Card (SAP-C), that bid needs to be accompanied by an alert (or when appropriate, an announcement) Second. The bottom flight in club or tournament games should restrict players to only use the SAP-C. By definition, the beginners game will not have to worry about alerts or announcements or whatever. At any point in time, players can chose to to change their CC or add additional treatments. However, pairs that chose to do so will need to start playing in more advanced flights. The ACBL should actively work to promote this system. Please note that promoting a systems is not equivalent to announcing a couple games at a National. The dynamic success of "Classic Bridge" certainly suggests that a more organized process is required. All ACBL certified teaching programs and materials should be designed to promote SAP-C. The ACBL should develop books and perhaps even freeware computer programs to present the bidding system. It is always easier to remember a logical structure rather than a series of unrelated facts. Alert requirements, bridge education/promotion, and convention restrictions needs to be treated as logical and systematic process. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOc1TKrFdMFbo8dHHEQJYJQCg8eQ1eHwYaHp+YQ6Q9dubSRzdQXkAoOpc OALVBzwIPfkNyXbXa3AVsApE =OSqL -----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 Sep 24 11:44:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8O1iIm28629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 11:44:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tonnant.cnchost.com (tonnant.concentric.net [207.155.248.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8O1iBt28623 for ; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 11:44:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from [216.112.239.190] (w190.z216112239.nyc-ny.dsl.cnc.net [216.112.239.190]) by tonnant.cnchost.com id VAA02580; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 21:44:03 -0400 (EDT) [ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.10] Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 21:44:01 -0400 To: Peter Gill From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] did insufficient to protect his own back ? Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:18 AM +1000 9/7/00, Peter Gill wrote: >I think that punishing North in this Appeal eats into the very essence >of the game, and in fact is part of an inadvertent process which if >unchecked may destroy bridge. Well put, Peter. I couldn't agree more. Adam Wildavsky -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 24 11:44:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8O1iMm28632 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 11:44:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tonnant.cnchost.com (tonnant.concentric.net [207.155.248.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8O1iCt28624 for ; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 11:44:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from [216.112.239.190] (w190.z216112239.nyc-ny.dsl.cnc.net [216.112.239.190]) by tonnant.cnchost.com id VAA02571; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 21:44:02 -0400 (EDT) [ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.10] Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000906223654.00859b10@worldcom.ch> References: <3.0.6.32.20000906223654.00859b10@worldcom.ch> Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 21:43:53 -0400 To: Grattan Endicott From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] did insufficient to protect his own back ? Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Appeal No. 10 >Relevant Laws: >Law 21B1, 40C. Surely the 40C adjustment was made using 12C2 - this should be noted. In at least some other writeups the use of 12C2 is explicitly stated. >The Committee: >East/West -400 stands as ruled by the Director but >North/South are not to have the full benefit of this because >North did insufficient to protect his own back. I find the phrase "North did insufficient to protect his own back" both annoyingly ungrammatical and possibly offensive. In terms of constructive criticism I think that when a committee makes a statement like this they must indicate the action or actions they believe the player should have been taken. Here the committee seems to imply that North should have asked whether a call that was not alerted was natural, but that approach seems absurd to me. >The Committee's decision: >Score adjusted to: >North/South receive >Greece -4 IMPs (adjustment by the Committee) >East/West receive >Netherlands +1 IMP (Director's ruling upheld) >Note: this is calculated against a score of NS -430 in the other >room Under what Laws did the committee make their ruling? I'm guessing 21B1, 40C, and 12C3, but it should be stated, per the CoP: "Decisions should be referenced with Law numbers..." Most decisions list only one set of Law numbers, not one for the directors and one for the committee. This makes sense since the CoP reads "nor (is) the function of the committee to establish what law is applicable and how it is to be interpreted; these are matters to be enquired of the Chief Tournament Director ... or his nominee ...". If the committee applied 12C3 and the director did not (I don't know whether the directors still have that option) the writeup should say so, as it does in other cases. At 7:16 AM +0100 9/12/00, Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ Extract from the WBF Alerting regulations: > " Players who participate in WBF events are >expected to protect themselves to a large extent. >They are also expected to observe the spirit of >the Laws as well as the letter. Full disclosure is >vital. " (A complete copy can be found at http://www1.bridge.gr/dept/Rules/RC_Cond.pdf) What does this mean? I expect the Conditions of Contest to expand upon the Laws - this seems to me only to obscure them. In context this "protection" could easily be interpreted to mean "Alert when in doubt, make sure your opponent is aware of your alert, and give a complete explanation." From what you've written it doesn't seem that you interpret it that way, and the AC in Maastricht #10 certainly didn't. >" Write the vision and make it plain upon the tables" > - Habakkuk That would be nice. Adam Wildavsky -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 24 14:15:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8O4EE528716 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 14:14:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wellington.cnchost.com (wellington.concentric.net [207.155.252.14]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8O4E7t28707 for ; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 14:14:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from [216.112.239.190] (w190.z216112239.nyc-ny.dsl.cnc.net [216.112.239.190]) by wellington.cnchost.com id AAA00803; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 00:14:03 -0400 (EDT) [ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.10] Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 23:51:08 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: [BLML] Maastrict #11 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is the case where dummy spoke to declarer in a language her opponents didn't understand. For the writeup by DWS see http://home.worldcom.ch/fsb/maastrict.htm I think the directors and the committee may have missed the boat on this one. We cannot know what was said at the table. In order to avoid having to make unpleasant accusations, and in order to provide the strongest possible incentive to avoid this behavior, we must rule as if the dummy had said the most improper thing we can imagine. The committee said "There was no evidence to suggest that dummy had said that spades were running...". This is not a topic they should have needed to discuss. The Director gave EW a warning. I can't guess what that was intended to accomplish. If EW had committed an infraction he should have made a ruling. If he decided that there was no infraction then I don't know what the warning was for. It's hard to tell from the writeup whether the committee was willing to adjust the score based on what dummy might have said, as I suggest they should. If South held a spade guard she'd be squeezed in three suits, and if declarer plays for it she'll make her contract anyway, but who's to say what this declarer would have done - all the evidence shows that she was out of sorts. If her only mistake has been to miscount the spades then she should play for four heart tricks or a double squeeze. That's better than 30% if North doesn't split from HQJxx, far better than the chance that South holds the DK and a heart guard along with her five spades. The writeup doesn't go into detail, but this may have been the point the NOS was trying to make. I certainly find it "at all probable" that declarer would have failed to take 13 tricks. If the committee was willing to adjust the score had the lie of the cards been different - say North had held the DK or a heart guard - then they should have said so. The omission means that their ruling has no deterring effect. Adam Wildavsky -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 24 14:15:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8O4EHl28717 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 14:14:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wellington.cnchost.com (wellington.concentric.net [207.155.252.14]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8O4EAt28710 for ; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 14:14:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from [216.112.239.190] (w190.z216112239.nyc-ny.dsl.cnc.net [216.112.239.190]) by wellington.cnchost.com id AAA00826; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 00:14:04 -0400 (EDT) [ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.10] Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 00:13:26 -0400 To: David Stevenson From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] A question on Maastricht Appeal#2 Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 3:24 AM +0100 9/19/00, David Stevenson wrote: >Why has no-one complained about one of the appeals where >I was the scribe? This is discrimination! Since you asked... The writeup of Case 11 mentions Laws 75F1, 16A2, and 90. It seems to me that it should have mentioned 43A1c, since that is the specific law that was violated. As for 75F1 I am mystified - I find no section F under Law 75. According to the CoP section on Reporting of appeals "Decisions should be referenced with Law numbers and it is highly important that the Chief Director or his nominee confirm Law references." Adam Wildavsky -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 24 17:11:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8O7AZi28785 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 17:10:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8O7ATt28781 for ; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 17:10:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.24]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 00:08:06 -0700 Message-ID: <00ca01c025f5$9425e2e0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000914080035.00ab02d0@127.0.0.1> <003401c01e6d$d72700e0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> <004b01c0234f$8e011cc0$0200000a@mindspring.com> <39C9F4C8.89AB457A@village.uunet.be> <027201c0241f$ff60e460$189c1e18@san.rr.com> <39CB1282.B6430D9A@village.uunet.be> <000a01c0248f$85df48a0$d46693c3@pacific> <032d01c024b5$06cf3fe0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 00:03:39 -0700 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: > O ye of little faith!!!!! > > It was from Lille: it is on my website: see > > http://blakjak.com/law_llle > > 4: Consideration was given to the meaning of 'average minus' where used > in Law 12C1. > Having debated the options, the Committee > held that 'average minus' means the > player's session percentage or 40% > whichever is the lower. Thanks, I had forgotten that item. Sorry, sorry. Still, I think it's best when citing an interpretation to mention where it came from. I can't resist saying that 'average minus' doesn't mean that at all, but readily concede that "at most 40%" can be so interpreted. > > > Aha! Perhaps you mean the 60% one? That is more difficult because > that was at M'cht. I was not intending to put full minutes on my page - > though perhaps it would be sensible - preferring a synopsis as at Lille, > if someone would write one. Now, where are the minutes from M'cht? > Isn't that what we got from Grattan a short time ago? He attached to an e-mail two text files, minutes of August 30 and September 4, 2000, in M'cht. Are there more? Item 2 in the 30 August minutes: The Chief Tournament Director asked that the Committee expand upon its interpretation of Law 25B (see Section 3 of the minutes of 20 January 2000). What minutes of what meeting are these? L25B was also the subject of item 6. of the Lille minutes. Evidently a later meeting discussed L25B again. Did I miss something about this when absent from BLML? Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, 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 Sun Sep 24 21:30:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8OBQXh28882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 21:26:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8OBQQt28878 for ; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 21:26:27 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id MAA13703 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 12:26:18 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 12:26 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Alas, Poor Yorick, I Knew Him Well... 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: <001001c025bf$7de03200$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Marv wrote: > Aside from that, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying (my > fault, no doubt). How about a decision tree? Probably not. > Does the UI demonstrably suggest one or more actions to you? > No > Do what you wish. > Yes > Are there one or more logical alternatives to what is > suggested? > Yes > Take one, any one. > No > Do what you wish. This is probably sufficient in hesitation cases. However when a system mix-up occurs I think the tree is different. First you have to ask "What would partner's bid mean if he was playing the system I thought we were playing?" If his bid would be forcing then pass cannot be an LA. If his bid would be a Heckler and Koch grand-slam-invitation then you bid the grand holding AKQ there is no LA. Having established that you can then ask "On that basis what bid is (or bids are) reasonable on my hand?" The answer to this question is often a single correct systemic bid, which obviously must be made. 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 Sun Sep 24 21:51:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8OBpT428900 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 21:51:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8OBpNt28896 for ; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 21:51:24 +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 13dAIb-000Gru-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 11:50:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 03:39:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: [BLML] Re: Fixing Broken Movements References: <000201c02570$93cca0c0$0c20073e@davicaltd> In-Reply-To: <000201c02570$93cca0c0$0c20073e@davicaltd> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <000201c02570$93cca0c0$0c20073e@davicaltd>, David Martin writes >I have discussed the possibility with David Stevenson of putting these files >onto his web site where they would be available in downloadable form so >hopefully anyone else that wants them will be able to get them easily from >there in due course. Meeaouw! I have arranged for Nanki Poo to do the necessary so they are now at http://blakjak.com/lwx_mtn0.htm 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 Sun Sep 24 23:10:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8OD93d28936 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 23:09:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8OD8vt28932 for ; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 23:08:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from freenet10.carleton.ca (freenet10 [134.117.136.30]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/NCF_f1_v3.00) with ESMTP id JAA03882 for ; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 09:08:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/NCF-Sun-Client) id JAA04965; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 09:08:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 09:08:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200009241308.JAA04965@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Singing in petto (was : Compulsory Pause over Preempt) Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >----- Original Message ----- >From: "alain gottcheiner" >To: "Ron Johnson" ; > >Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 12:42 PM >Subject: [BLML] Singing in petto (was : Compulsory Pause over Preempt) > > >> At 14:09 13/09/00 -0400, you wrote: >> > >> >People are completely hopeless at estimating time -- even as short as 5 >> >seconds. Having said that, 5 seconds seems right. Long enough that the >> >pause is basically unreadable. >> >> Try music (not aloud, of course). The tempo of 'Poor old Joe' or 'Kumbaya' >> is exactly 1 beat per second, and the latter takes exactly 30 sec a verse. >> The moment you've come to the second 'my Lord', 10 seconds have elapsed. >If >> the opponents took a whole verse to bid, it's too much. >> I think I might have found the musical piece. Try the old classic, "Happy birthday to you/happy birthday to you/ happy birthday dear /happy birthday to you." It even has a built in regulator: if you sing faster than most people, just increase the length of the name; if slower, shorten it. With practice, you should hit 10 seconds with great regularity. (But if you forget youself and sing aloud, you could hit 10 seconds with great hilarity.) Tony (aka ac342) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 25 01:44:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8OFh8d29091 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 01:43:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8OFh1t29087 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 01:43:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivesq3.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.115.67]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA11733 for ; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 11:42:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000924114252.01431328@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 11:42:52 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] A question on Maastricht Appeal#2 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 12:13 AM 9/24/2000 -0400, Adam wrote: >At 3:24 AM +0100 9/19/00, David Stevenson wrote: >>Why has no-one complained about one of the appeals where >>I was the scribe? This is discrimination! > >Since you asked... > >The writeup of Case 11 mentions Laws 75F1, 16A2, and 90. It seems to >me that it should have mentioned 43A1c, since that is the specific >law that was violated. As for 75F1 I am mystified - I find no section >F under Law 75. According to the CoP section on Reporting of appeals >"Decisions should be referenced with Law numbers and it is highly >important that the Chief Director or his nominee confirm Law >references." David will no doubt correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe this was simply a typo: L73F1 was what was intended. 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 Mon Sep 25 04:39:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8OId7x29182 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 04:39:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8OId1t29178 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 04:39:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13dGfu-000Gfm-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 19:38:55 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 05:54:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastrict #11 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Adam Wildavsky writes snip > >The Director gave EW a warning. I can't guess what that was intended >to accomplish. If EW had committed an infraction he should have made >a ruling. If he decided that there was no infraction then I don't >know what the warning was for. An infraction occurred. A warning (one of the forms of a PP) was given wtp? -- John (MadDog) Probst "I agree, for what phone before fax to: 451 Mile End Road that's worth." 020 8980 4947 London E3 4PA DWS, 19/09/00 john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 25 05:08:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8OJ8Kc29204 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Sep 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 smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8OJ8Et29200 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 05:08:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.24]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 12:08:27 -0700 Message-ID: <001c01c0265a$a2c7f760$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Alas, Poor Yorick, I Knew Him Well... Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 12:06:06 -0700 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 Tim wrote: > Marv wrote: > > > Aside from that, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying (my > > fault, no doubt). How about a decision tree? > > Probably not. > > > Does the UI demonstrably suggest one or more actions to you? > > No > > Do what you wish. > > Yes > > Are there one or more logical alternatives to what is > > suggested? > > Yes > > Take one, any one. > > No > > Do what you wish. > > This is probably sufficient in hesitation cases. However when a > system mix-up occurs I think the tree is different. > > First you have to ask "What would partner's bid mean if he was playing > the system I thought we were playing?" If his bid would be forcing > then pass cannot be an LA. If his bid would be a Heckler and Koch > grand-slam-invitation then you bid the grand holding AKQ there is no > LA. > > Having established that you can then ask "On that basis what bid is > (or bids are) reasonable on my hand?" The answer to this question is > often a single correct systemic bid, which obviously must be made. > Oh, all right. I thought "to you" implied: Does the UI demonstrably suggest one or more actions to you in your presumed system? So, substitute that, okay? Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, 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 Mon Sep 25 05:44:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8OJgY329246 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 05:42:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8OJgOt29238 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 05:42:25 +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 13dHfG-0001Mm-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 19:42:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 14:31:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastrict #11 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 Adam Wildavsky wrote: >This is the case where dummy spoke to declarer in a language her >opponents didn't understand. For the writeup by DWS see > > http://home.worldcom.ch/fsb/maastrict.htm > >I think the directors and the committee may have missed the boat on >this one. We cannot know what was said at the table. In order to >avoid having to make unpleasant accusations, and in order to provide >the strongest possible incentive to avoid this behavior, we must rule >as if the dummy had said the most improper thing we can imagine. The >committee said "There was no evidence to suggest that dummy had said >that spades were running...". This is not a topic they should have >needed to discuss. The general approach to the appeals process is that the Appeals Committee hears all the evidence and then makes a judgement based on it. This principle is least followed in North America which seems prepared to discount completely self-serving statements by the offending side [while considering self-serving statements by their opponents] in some cases. I believe that bridge throughout the world has not reached this position where it is necessary to make wrong decisions for their effect. >The Director gave EW a warning. I can't guess what that was intended >to accomplish. If EW had committed an infraction he should have made >a ruling. If he decided that there was no infraction then I don't >know what the warning was for. He made a ruling: he gave her a warning. You may disagree with the ruling, but it is not fair to say he did not make a ruling. -- 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 Mon Sep 25 05:44:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8OJgWc29245 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 05:42:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8OJgOt29237 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 05:42:25 +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 13dHfG-0001Ml-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 19:42:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 14:21:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Alas, Poor Yorick, I Knew Him Well... References: <001001c025bf$7de03200$189c1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <001001c025bf$7de03200$189c1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >Aside from that, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying (my >fault, no doubt). How about a decision tree? > >Does the UI demonstrably suggest one or more actions to you? > No > Do what you wish. > Yes > Are there one or more logical alternatives to what is suggested? > Yes > Take one, any one. Surely "take one that is not suggested by the UI"? > No > Do what you wish. > >Marv (Marvin L. French) >mlfrench@writeme.com >San Diego, CA, 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/ -- 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 Mon Sep 25 07:37:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8OLaN229307 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 07:36:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8OLaFt29303 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 07:36:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8OEj0I08105 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 14:45:00 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Subject: RE: [BLML] ACBL Alerts Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 14:33:52 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <000c01c025c3$6cc564a0$c33467c0@isi.com> In-Reply-To: <000c01c025c3$6cc564a0$c33467c0@isi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00092414445905.08077@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sun, 24 Sep 2000, Richard Willey wrote: > Second. The bottom flight in club or tournament games should > restrict players to only use the SAP-C. By definition, the beginners > game will not have to worry about alerts or announcements or > whatever. At any point in time, players can chose to to change their > CC or add additional treatments. However, pairs that chose to do so > will need to start playing in more advanced flights. This will not work in most clubs, which is where novices start playing. It's reasonable to have novice games with a restricted card at tournaments, but most club games are open and cannot have a separate novice section. A typical club game with ten tables will have only about two tables of novices, and it also has good players and experts who are established 2/1 or Precision players and do not want to be forced to change. -- Sincerely, David Grabiner, grabiner@math.la.asu.edu Department of Mathematics, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1804 http://math.la.asu.edu/~grabiner Phone: (480)965-3745 (work), (480)517-1674 (home). Fax: (480)965-8119. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 25 09:52:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8ONo5329449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:50:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8ONo0t29445 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:50:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id da513581 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:49:24 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-003-p-213-234.tmns.net.au ([203.54.213.234]) by mail4.bigpond.com (Claudes-Bulletproof-MailRouter V2.9b 7/822829); 25 Sep 2000 09:49:23 Message-ID: <001d01c02626$063938c0$ead536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastrict #11 Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 22:50:31 +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 John Probst wrote: >Adam Wildavsky writes: > >snip >> >>The Director gave EW a warning. I can't guess what that was >> intended to accomplish. If EW had committed an infraction >> he should have made a ruling. If he decided that there was >> no infraction then I don't know what the warning was for. > >An infraction occurred. A warning (one of the forms of a PP) >was given. > >wtp? Please correct whichever of the following summary is wrong: L73F1, L16A2 and L90 are the relevant laws according to the Director. The first two laws are relevant only if UI occurred, and since declarer waking up independently after receiving UI is a no-no, we may as well cross out the first two laws. So Law 90 is the only relevant law quoted. It would have been nice for the AC or Director to let us know whether there is a tournament regulation about "speaking only English", and also to quote the law (L73A1?, L74B2? not L43A1(c) as no UI thus not L43B1?) which was responsible for the second infraction to which the AC refer (i.e. dummy speaking to declarer). The fact that I am having difficulty choosing which law is significant suggests to me that it would have been helpful for the AC to quote the relevant law number(s), once this case ceased being a UI case and became a "violation of procedure" case. Is it reasonable to assume that since according to the AC only AI was passed to declarer, dummy's two comments were quite proper under Law 42B2, the irregularity by declarer being, say, a breach of Laws 74B1 and 74B4, as "sitting composing herself for some time" while on play as instructed by her captain beforehand, seems to me to be an unusual approach to bridge, with possible Law 73F2 implications too. Since the AC made no negative comment about this practice, I assume they approve of such inaction by declarer, which negates this entire paragraph. Also it would be nice to know if the infraction was a breach of Law 90B8 (if so, then why not write L90B8 rather than L90 in the Appeal write-up?) or of the "not limited to" section of Law 90B, in which case the suggestion of Law 90B7 that an adjusted score is usually associated with a PP for an error in procedure is interesting. Summarising, I'm a bit unclear about which Laws were considered here, even after the L75F1 misprint has been corrected. I don't think that this appeal is a simple "wtp", and I think this appeal raises more questions than it answers, especially the unanswered question about whether there is a law or regulation about which language to use. I find it quite confusing trying to work out which laws and regulations were breached., and in a case like this one I feel that it is important to let us know which laws are breached rather than have the AC tell us that there were "violations of procedure" without quoting more than Law 90. 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 Mon Sep 25 10:03:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8P03Fv29466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 10:03:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8P03Bt29462 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 10:03:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id pa514165 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 10:02:30 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-003-p-213-234.tmns.net.au ([203.54.213.234]) by mail4.bigpond.com (Claudes-Multi-Threaded-MailRouter V2.9b 7/827534); 25 Sep 2000 10:02:24 Message-ID: <002601c02627$d7762c80$ead536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Now about Maastricht appeal 14 Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 23:03:31 +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 Adam Wildavsky wrote; >This is the case where dummy spoke to declarer in a language >her opponents didn't understand. For the writeup by DWS see > > http://home.worldcom.ch/fsb/maastrict.htm > >I think the directors and the committee may have missed the boat on >this one. We cannot know what was said at the table. In order to >avoid having to make unpleasant accusations, and in order to provide >the strongest possible incentive to avoid this behavior, we must rule >as if the dummy had said the most improper thing we can imagine. The >committee said "There was no evidence to suggest that dummy had said >that spades were running...". This is not a topic they should have >needed to discuss. > >The Director gave EW a warning. I can't guess what that was intended >to accomplish. If EW had committed an infraction he should have made >a ruling. If he decided that there was no infraction then I don't >know what the warning was for. > >It's hard to tell from the writeup whether the committee was willing >to adjust the score based on what dummy might have said, as I suggest >they should. If South held a spade guard she'd be squeezed in three >suits, and if declarer plays for it she'll make her contract anyway, >but who's to say what this declarer would have done - all the >evidence shows that she was out of sorts. If her only mistake has >been to miscount the spades then she should play for four heart >tricks or a double squeeze. That's better than 30% if North doesn't >split from HQJxx, far better than the chance that South holds the DK >and a heart guard along with her five spades. The writeup doesn't go >into detail, but this may have been the point the NOS was trying to >make. > >I certainly find it "at all probable" that declarer would have failed >to take 13 tricks. > >If the committee was willing to adjust the score had the lie of the >cards been different - say North had held the DK or a heart guard - >then they should have said so. The omission means that their ruling >has no deterring effect. The words "after that" in the AC write-up could be clarified. If they mean "immediately" then EW's actions logically look very bad indeed. If the words mean "two minutes after that", then the non-English words seem more likely to be irrelevant to declarer's wake-up, i.e.the apparent ruling of AI (by the AC I think, by the Director it's not as clear whether AI or UI was ruled) makes sense. I wonder whether a question was asked about the time gap involved in "after that"? I agree with Adam that 12 tricks should be the ruling for declarer if UI is presumed, since she then cannot cash a fifth spade and would have failed by one, or more likely two, tricks (trying for four heart tricks looks likely, after winning the first heart South can lead a diamond for two down). Surely the AC's last line means that they felt that declarer did not have UI and thus would not make her contract, since otherwise their feeling is IMO totally and completely unjustifiable. It thus seems to me that AI was presumed. Not that I can tell for sure. 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 Mon Sep 25 14:18:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8P4Htv29559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 14:17:55 +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 e8P4Hmt29555 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 14:17:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.199] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13dPht-000N3b-00; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 05:17:33 +0100 Message-ID: <003101c026a7$ae9b9680$c75608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Peter Gill" , "Bridge Laws" References: <001d01c02626$063938c0$ead536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastrict #11 Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 05:17:32 +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: Bridge Laws Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2000 1:50 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastrict #11 ----------------------- \x/ ------------------------- > Summarising, I'm a bit unclear about which Laws were > considered here, even after the L75F1 misprint has been > corrected. I don't think that this appeal is a simple "wtp", > and I think this appeal raises more questions than it answers, > especially the unanswered question about whether there is > a law or regulation about which language to use. I find it quite > confusing trying to work out which laws and regulations were > breached., and in a case like this one I feel that it is important > to let us know which laws are breached rather than have the AC > tell us that there were "violations of procedure" without quoting > more than Law 90. > +=+ WBF General Conditions of Contest, Section 7: "Official Language English is the official language of a World Bridge Championship. During a match the players may converse only in English unless both captains (in team games) or all four players at the table (in pairs events) agree to use some other common language at their own risk. If necessary. each captain is responsible for the provision of an interpreter for translation into English. The Laws printed in English will be used by the Tournament Directors to adjudicate irregularities. No appeal due to misunderstanding in a language other than English will be heard. " ~ 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 Sep 25 15:10:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8P59xu29588 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 15:09:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from goliath.cnchost.com (goliath.cnchost.com [207.155.252.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8P59rt29584 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 15:09:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from [216.112.239.190] (w190.z216112239.nyc-ny.dsl.cnc.net [216.112.239.190]) by goliath.cnchost.com id BAA14402; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 01:09:49 -0400 (EDT) [ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.10] Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 01:09:48 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: [BLML] What are the logical alternatives here? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk EW Vul W N E S P 2H 2H is weak and could be a 5 card suit P P 3C P 3H X P P 3H asks for a heart stop and pass denies one 3S P 3N P 3N shows a partial heart stop, typically Qx or Jxx AKQJ 843 A65 876 This is an ACBL Flight "A" game. In the ACBL a logical alternative is interpreted as follows: "The Law's phrase "logical alternative" is intended to exclude extreme interpretations: it means neither "any conceivable alternative" on the one hand, nor, on the other, "clearly preferable alternative." A logical alternative is a call that would be seriously considered by at least a substantial minority of equivalent players, acting on the basis of all the information legitimately available." For further discussion, and a good example, see http://www.bridgeworld.com/sampler/samed.html Please reply privately and I'll summarize for the list. I'll post details of the case as well. Adam Wildavsky -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 25 16:45:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8P6j7s29628 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 16:45:07 +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 e8P6j0t29623 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 16:45:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.206] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13dS0O-000OPx-00; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 07:44:49 +0100 Message-ID: <002501c026bc$4110c8a0$ce5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Peter Gill" , "Bridge Laws" References: <002601c02627$d7762c80$ead536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Now about Maastricht appeal 14 Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 05:41:27 +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: Bridge Laws Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2000 2:03 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Now about Maastricht appeal 14 > Adam Wildavsky wrote; > >This is the case where dummy spoke to declarer in a language > >her opponents didn't understand. > > > >I certainly find it "at all probable" that declarer would have failed > >to take 13 tricks. > > > >If the committee was willing to adjust the score had the lie of the > >cards been different - say North had held the DK or a heart guard - > >then they should have said so. The omission means that their ruling > >has no deterring effect. > +=+ It looks to me as though the committee may have ruled that it was not at all probable that (this) declarer would have failed to make 13 tricks. That seems to be the implication of the statements in the report. It is also plain that the AC accepted the explanation of what was said. I think the onus on the AC is to deal with the lie of the cards as they are. Any remark about other distributions, even if interesting, would be incidental and not essential to the decision. ~ 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 Sep 25 16:45:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8P6jEE29633 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 16:45:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8P6j7t29629 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 16:45:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.206] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13dS0S-000OPx-00; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 07:44:53 +0100 Message-ID: <002701c026bc$439ddc20$ce5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Adam Wildavsky" Cc: References: <3.0.6.32.20000906223654.00859b10@worldcom.ch> Subject: Re: [BLML] did insufficient to protect his own back ? Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 07:41:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Grattan Endicott Cc: Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2000 2:43 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] did insufficient to protect his own back ? > >Appeal No. 10 > >Relevant Laws: > >Law 21B1, 40C. > > > I find the phrase "North did insufficient to protect his own back" > both annoyingly ungrammatical and possibly offensive. +=+ Perhaps so; however it has been common parlance in appeals at international level for very many years. It was introduced to me by an illustrious player, inscribed in the US Hall of Fame, whose name does not appear in the law book.+=+ > In terms of > constructive criticism I think that when a committee makes a > statement like this they must indicate the action or actions they > believe the player should have been taken. Here the committee seems > to imply that North should have asked whether a call that was not > alerted was natural, but that approach seems absurd to me. > +=+ Yes. Written for the consumption of the players at this level, who could be expected to understand, it is true it may not be fully apparent to the world at large. Behind screens, when the meaning of partner's call is dependent on the meaning of opponents' call, a moment to look at opponents' CC is an act of self-protection. It could perhaps be as much even without screens but this is a moot point. ~ 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 Sep 25 20:57:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8PAujc29726 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 20:56:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from t21mta02-app.talk21.com (mta02.talk21.com [62.172.192.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8PAudt29722 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 20:56:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from davicaltd ([213.1.178.160]) by t21mta02-app.talk21.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000925105436.CHDQ26996.t21mta02-app.talk21.com@davicaltd> for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 11:54:36 +0100 Message-ID: <00bc01c026df$459f3c80$a0b201d5@davicaltd> From: "David Martin" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: [BLML] Fixing Broken Movements Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 11:55:36 +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 Hello Everyone I hope that BLML regulars will forgive me posting something to the list that is not about bridge laws but I expect that it will be of interest to many of the TDs on the list. I have produced a ZIP file that contains various unusual bridge movements saved as Excel spreadsheets. David Stevenson has kindly put it on his web site and if, when you have read further, you would like a copy then you can download it by using the following hyperlink. http://blakjak.com/lwx_mtn0.htm Most of the movements are completely crazy and no TD in their right mind would consciously choose to use them. However, the reason that they are of interest is that they are often what is created when a TD makes a mistake whilst setting up a conventional movement, eg. by forgetting a relay or putting one in the wrong place. The instructions for completing the appropriate crazy movement then become the rescue procedure to be adopted. Each movement is contained in its own Excel spreadsheet that can be printed onto 1 sheet of A4 paper and the file 'Movement Index & Key' is just what you would expect and indicates the problems that each movement can solve. The movement in each particular spreadsheet is an example only and the instructions contain algebraic references that enable them to be adapted for use with different numbers of tables. Please let me know if you have any queries or if you think that there are any errors or omissions. Finally, I must formally acknowledge the great help that I have received from Jim Proctor in developing some of these solutions. Regards 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 Mon Sep 25 22:35:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8PCZDa29866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 22:35:13 +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 e8PCZ4t29860 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 22:35:05 +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 13dXT7-00024H-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 13:34:51 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 01:37:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Fixing Broken Movements References: <000201c02570$93cca0c0$0c20073e@davicaltd> 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 , Quango writes >In article <000201c02570$93cca0c0$0c20073e@davicaltd>, David Martin > writes > >>I have discussed the possibility with David Stevenson of putting these files >>onto his web site where they would be available in downloadable form so >>hopefully anyone else that wants them will be able to get them easily from >>there in due course. > > Meeaouw! > > I have arranged for Nanki Poo to do the necessary so they are now at > > http://blakjak.com/lwx_mtn0.htm Ssssnnnnnnaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrllllllllll !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Stupid cat! No tuna for him! Sorry to those who duly downloaded all David's Australia reports: I have now got NP to correct it! 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 Mon Sep 25 22:35:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8PCZ9029865 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 22:35:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8PCYvt29851 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 22:34:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13dXT7-00024C-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 13:34:51 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 01:31:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A question on Maastricht Appeal#2 References: <3.0.1.32.20000924114252.01431328@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000924114252.01431328@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >At 12:13 AM 9/24/2000 -0400, Adam wrote: >>At 3:24 AM +0100 9/19/00, David Stevenson wrote: >>>Why has no-one complained about one of the appeals where >>>I was the scribe? This is discrimination! >> >>Since you asked... >> >>The writeup of Case 11 mentions Laws 75F1, 16A2, and 90. It seems to >>me that it should have mentioned 43A1c, since that is the specific >>law that was violated. As for 75F1 I am mystified - I find no section >>F under Law 75. According to the CoP section on Reporting of appeals >>"Decisions should be referenced with Law numbers and it is highly >>important that the Chief Director or his nominee confirm Law >>references." > >David will no doubt correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe this was >simply a typo: L73F1 was what was intended. I think I may have made one mistake, looking back on all my appeals: I copied quoted Law numbers, rather than checking them. Of course, if I noticed one was wrong, that was different, but the TDs quote the Law numbers. -- 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 Mon Sep 25 22:35:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8PCZ9p29862 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 22:35:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8PCYvt29848 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 22:34:57 +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 13dXT7-00024F-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 13:34:51 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 01:35:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Alerts References: <000c01c025c3$6cc564a0$c33467c0@isi.com> <00092414445905.08077@psa836> In-Reply-To: <00092414445905.08077@psa836> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David J Grabiner wrote: >On Sun, 24 Sep 2000, Richard Willey wrote: > >> Second. The bottom flight in club or tournament games should >> restrict players to only use the SAP-C. By definition, the beginners >> game will not have to worry about alerts or announcements or >> whatever. At any point in time, players can chose to to change their >> CC or add additional treatments. However, pairs that chose to do so >> will need to start playing in more advanced flights. > >This will not work in most clubs, which is where novices start playing. >It's reasonable to have novice games with a restricted card at >tournaments, but most club games are open and cannot have a separate >novice section. A typical club game with ten tables will have only >about two tables of novices, and it also has good players and experts >who are established 2/1 or Precision players and do not want to be >forced to change. I do not believe that putting people in a game where alerts are not used does anything to teach them to play in clubs anyway. I think it a dreadful method. In England you alert Stayman. Of course, our L&EC gets a fair amount of stick about that [the normal complaints about our alerting are twofold: there should be extra rules, and the total rules should be simpler!!!] but it has one side advantage: it teaches beginners to alert. -- 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 Mon Sep 25 22:35:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8PCZ2T29854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 22:35:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8PCYst29845 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 22:34:55 +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 13dXT7-00024A-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 13:34:50 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 01:29:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Singing in petto (was : Compulsory Pause over Preempt) References: <200009241308.JAA04965@freenet10.carleton.ca> In-Reply-To: <200009241308.JAA04965@freenet10.carleton.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A. L. Edwards wrote: >I think I might have found the musical piece. Try the old classic, >"Happy birthday to you/happy birthday to you/ > happy birthday dear /happy birthday to you." >It even has a built in regulator: if you sing faster than most >people, just increase the length of the name; if slower, shorten >it. With practice, you should hit 10 seconds with great regularity. >(But if you forget youself and sing aloud, you could hit 10 seconds >with great hilarity.) Brilliant! Works perfectly if I use Nanki Poo! [I distinctly heard a snarl behind me?] -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 25 23:07:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8PD6nH29906 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 23:06:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8PD6gt29902 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 23:06:43 +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 e8PD6bC02198 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:06:38 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000925083911.00ab8e30@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, 25 Sep 2000 09:08:09 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Merry-go-round In-Reply-To: <035401c024c0$f95fcda0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000922085129.00aaff00@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:09 PM 9/22/00, Marvin wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > > > The ACBL regulation forbids you from altering your methods based on >the > > opponents' defences to them, but you are still free to use judgment. >Just > > because I announce that in first seat at favorable vulnerability I >may > > pre-empt on as little as seven small with 0 HCP doesn't mean that a >pass > > guarantees that I do not hold that hand. If I happen upon a rare >pair who > > plays penalty doubles of pre-empts, I am free to exercise my >tactical > > judgment and choose to pass with a hand that might pre-empt against >most > > other pairs, at least until I have done it consistently and often >enough > > with a particular partner that he can anticipate it (at which point >it > > becomes incorporated into our methods). > > >The highly respected Eric Landau's opinions on this matter, expressed >quite a while back, are what have kept me from pressing the ACBL to >write a clearer regulation than the one now in the back of the Laws. >Danny Kleinman has expressed similar opinions to me. I have been >unable to come up with a well-worded regulation that solves this >Chicken and Egg problem to their satisfaction. > >What bothers me about Eric's example above is that his cc section on >preempts would be marked "Very Light." If he is not going to open a >very light preempt, then I would not want to play semi-business >doubles against him. Moreover, he is playing one method against me and >another against others, which doesn't seem right. It would indeed. And it would be correct, since if I opened a preempt it would conform to that description -- and Marv would presumably want to play semi-business doubles of it. But my methods neither set some minimum for a "very light" preempt nor incorporate the inference that a pass denies such a minimum holding (if they did, that would certainly require disclosure, and would be on my CC) -- any more than the fact that, say, a first-seat 1H opening promises five hearts would mean that a first-seat pass denies five hearts. The ACBL regulation prohibits me from preempting against the penalty doublers with a hand that would be too strong for a preempt against non-penalty doublers (at least after I've used up my one-per-lifetime psych [insert smiley] in such a position), but doesn't require me to ignore all tactical considerations and, as Danny would put it, commit suicide. >Well, if his partner is completely unaware of the tactic, maybe it's >okay. Then it's also okay for weak notrumpers to tighten up a point or >two against penalty doublers, and for light overcallers to pass with a >weak suit with which they would normally overcall. > >My feeling at this time is that a player should be able to trust what >s/he sees on an opposing cc, and that changing methods in accordance >with anticipated countermeasures may be okay with a weak or first-time >partner (who won't know, or allow for, the deviation from method), but >not when playing with a partner who could possibly be on the lookout >for it. But we're not talking about changing methods. We're talking about using judgment in applying those methods. You can still trust my CC; any preempt I make will fall within the same minimum-to-maximum range as it would against any other pair. >Danny's opinion is stronger than Eric's. I think he would say, "Of >course we would tighten up against penalty doublers, doing otherwise >would be suicidal. My partner knows this, the opponents should know >this, it is just commonsense bridge." > >What do I say to that? "But Danny, you can't legally change method on >the basis of opposing countermeasures"? I expect he would say, as I would, "Of course not. But I'm not changing my methods at all, I'm simply using my bidding judgment to the best of my ability." >Unfortunately, a regulation >that outlaws his stance would be impossible to enforce, making >compliance a matter of good ethics. Because nobody would understand a regulation that purported to make good ethics require bad bridge. Regulations may set the context within which you may use your judgment, but can't forbid you from doing so within whatever context they establish. Under current interpretation, an SO could presumably pass a regulation requiring that any bid of 4NT must ask for aces, but even under the WBF's "anything goes" policy I don't think they would be allowed to pass a regulation that says, "If you hold such-and-such a hand, you must bid 4NT to ask for aces." 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 Sep 25 23:14:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8PDDqX29923 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 23:13:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cobalt7-he.global.net.uk (cobalt7-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.167]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8PDDit29919 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 23:13:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from pa6s10a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.90.167] helo=pacific) by cobalt7-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13dQ6s-00061X-00; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 05:43:23 +0100 Message-ID: <001201c026f1$fd680380$a75a93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Nanki Poo" , References: <000201c02570$93cca0c0$0c20073e@davicaltd> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Fixing Broken Movements Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 13:58:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> ----- Original Message ----- From: Quango To: Sent: 25 September 2000 01:37 Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Fixing Broken Movements > In article , Quango > writes > >In article <000201c02570$93cca0c0$0c20073e@davicaltd>, David Martin > > writes > > > > > > I have arranged for Nanki Poo to do the necessary so they are now at > > > > http://blakjak.com/lwx_mtn0.htm > > Ssssnnnnnnaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrllllllllll !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > +=+ Is eithor of these intelligent superior beings any good at checking law numbers and supplying any missing references? +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 25 23:22:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8PDMd029935 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 23:22:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8PDMXt29931 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 23:22:34 +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 GAA22927 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 06:12:04 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard Willey" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] ACBL Alerts Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:25:40 -0400 Message-ID: <000401c026f4$1915aae0$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 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > I do not believe that putting people in a game where alerts are not > used does anything to teach them to play in clubs anyway. I > think it a dreadful method. Nearly all the bridge teachers that I talk to stress the importance of being able to focus their instructions. It is extremely difficult for new players to multi-task and simultaneously worry about about the correct bid to make with their hand and whether or not to alert/announce. > In England you alert Stayman. Of course, our L&EC gets a > fair amount > of stick about that [the normal complaints about our alerting are > twofold: there should be extra rules, and the total rules should be > simpler!!!] but it has one side advantage: it teaches beginners to > alert. I think that it is much more important to teach beginners WHAT they should be alerting. I consider the British system to be severely flawed. The purpose of the alert system is to convey useful information. By designing a system where every real world response 2C or 2D response to 1N is alertable, you've made the actual alerts for these bids completely meaningless. I understand the rational for trying to make the alert system simple, but you are putting the cart in front of the horse. The alert structure should be designed to indicate that a bid has a non-standard meaning. Britain has chosen to define standard as artificial. I would argue that this is not an effective treatment. Most players employ relatively few natural treatments. There are many natural bids (canape openings and repsonses) that should require alerts. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOc9SUrFdMFbo8dHHEQINSQCgndoPV5/Osr6hBJOPtEneMgkDsdIAnjGm ORnCl5g0pWiVwGEn2HbijI4+ =VQwx -----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 Sep 25 23:31:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8PDV8f29948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 23:31:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8PDV1t29944 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 23:31:02 +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 e8PDUwC03804 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:30:58 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000925091854.00b5f100@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, 25 Sep 2000 09:32:29 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal In-Reply-To: <200009222008.e8MK89q26076@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> 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 04:08 PM 9/22/00, Ted wrote: >Okay, my statement was far more extreme than it was originally >intended. I hadn't noticed until so many people called me on >the point. My problem is that as a player, a director, and a >appeal committee member, I've noticed that so many of the problems >are caused by inappropriate questioning. So, I think it should >be a caution to only ask appropriate questions and not unnecessarily >probing questions. I'm not trying to prevent anyone from making >their appropriate judgements on the hand (ala Mr. Landau's >contention) or from providing UI by asking only when in need of >making a decision (as my statement erroneously implied), but to >ensure that players do not ask inappropriate questions. Perhaps >my experience of working with so many players that don't ask the >right questions has made me "gun-shy" about the questions, but I've >heard so many inappropriate questions, that I think I've become a >touch of a UI-nazi and gone overboard here. I've heard so many >"What does 3C show?" and "How many C's?" type of questions that >I've gotten cynical. My apologies...and I'll retract my statement >above to calm the waters. > >My problem is that the consistency and nature of the questions >given to players is often so variable. Perhaps in the top-level >of bridge, players regularly "always ask" but I've found that >even with the decent frequent-tournament types, the "always ask" >is more like a 90% and sometimes very telling (and this from good >players who know better). I've also found that "Please explain" >happens most but not all of the time...and it's the lapses that >give problems. But amongst our B and C level players, we often >have people asking more telling questions. Perhaps we need a little >better information to the players, but it's a frequent problem >around here and along the mid-Atlantic, especially in the lower >flights. The problem Mr. Ying raises is a very serious one, and if it takes a "UI Nazi" attitude to combat it at Mr. Ying's games, I applaud him for his stance. But this problem is orthogonal to the question under consideration, which is when it is appropriate to ask a properly phrased question. Of course questions that convey UI to the questioner's partner must be dealt with as the laws require. And, as I read the laws, they do make it improper to ask questions when you are not interested in the answer. But I do not see any reason to believe that they should be dealt with differently depending on *why* you are interested in the answer. My previous argument merely asserted that a desire to attempt to reconstruct one's opponents' hands from their auction is a legitimate "bridge reason" for wanting to know, and therefore for asking -- at the proper time and in the proper form -- what their bids mean, even if there is no possibility that the answer will affect one's actions during the auction as opposed to during the play of the hand. 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 Sep 25 23:33:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8PDXSi29960 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 23:33:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8PDXLt29956 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 23:33:22 +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 JAA12906; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:33:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA083368789; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:33:09 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:33:07 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: RE: [BLML] ACBL Alerts Mime-Version: 1.0 From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, rwilley@isi.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline ;Creation-Date="Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:33:06 -0400" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id e8PDXOt29957 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk rwilley wrote: >The ACBL should define a standard bridge system. Presumably, since >this would be primarily used in North American, the system would be >grounded in 5 card majors and a 15-17 HCP 1NT opening. However, I >don't really care what they system was, as long as it is designed to >be easy to teach and playable. Fully agree. Why not something around SAYC use by many teachers as the basic system and mostly use by on-line bridge players around the world. Playing SAYC would not then require any alert.... nor announcement... Barbara is right. Present ACBL alert procedure is unusable not only for beginners but by most players at the club level. Try to explain them that 1S-X-3S require an alert if not weak but 1S-2C-3S is alertable when weak.... very logic... Not easier with announcements: you must say "transfer" on 1N-P-2H, but "alert" on 1N-P-2S... A lot of players now announce anything. When teaching alerts to beginners in "Preparation to duplicata" lessons I use to say: "According to your system (SAYC), you have to alert or announce this and this (they get a short list). Dont bother with the rest now and dont say me you looked at the ACBL alert procedure and dont understand.... I have the same problem... 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 Mon Sep 25 23:55:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8PDscm29979 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 23:54:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8PDsWt29975 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 23:54:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from davicaltd ([62.7.118.66]) by t21mta03-app.talk21.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000925135532.CSVS2486.t21mta03-app.talk21.com@davicaltd> for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 14:55:32 +0100 Message-ID: <002301c026f8$2047dfa0$3f54073e@davicaltd> From: "David Martin" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Fw: [BLML] Re: Fixing Broken Movements Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 14:53:51 +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 > > > In article , Quango > > writes > > >In article <000201c02570$93cca0c0$0c20073e@davicaltd>, David Martin > > > writes > > > > > > > > > I have arranged for Nanki Poo to do the necessary so they are now at > > > > > > http://blakjak.com/lwx_mtn0.htm > > > > Ssssnnnnnnaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrllllllllll !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > > +=+ Is eithor of these intelligent superior beings any > good at checking law numbers and supplying any > missing references? +=+ > ###### I'm sure that I'd be excellent at it but I'm rather busy right now! ######## -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 26 00:09:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8PE99g00013 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 00:09:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8PE93t00009 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 00:09:03 +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 GAA23359 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 06:58:35 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard Willey" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: RE: [BLML] Merry-go-round Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 10:12:11 -0400 Message-ID: <000601c026fa$98cc9e00$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 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20000925083911.00ab8e30@127.0.0.1> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > But we're not talking about changing methods. We're talking > about using > judgment in applying those methods. You can still trust my > CC; any preempt > I make will fall within the same minimum-to-maximum range as it > would against any other pair. Trying to define preempt style using as simple a metric as minimum and maximum HCP ranges is completely facetious, Eric, and you should know this as well as anyone. My academic background is in game theory. As a result, I have a tendency to approach many of these questions in a somewhat "Ivory Tower" manner. I will certainly admit that the arguement that I am going to make here is more suited towards a set of automatons or computer programs playing one another than a set of real world bridge players. None-the-less, I think that this example conforms to the intentions of the laws. The Merry-Go-Round problem can be easily avoided as long as the decision to adopt bids can be modelled as a multi-stage game. In the first round of the game, each player defines a set of opening bids, along with a response structure in uncontested auctions. It is important to note, that players have the choice of using mixed strategies when defining individual bids. Simply put, a mixed strategy is one that includes non-deterministic behaviour. As an example, I might chose to randomize my style for opening a third seat opening bids. I might chose to opening a hand like AKQxxx KQx x xxx 1S 34% of the time 2S 33% of the time 3S 33% of the time. In a similar fashion, my 1N overcall might show 16 - 18 HCP balanced 88% of the time. The remaining 12% of the time, the 1N would be based on the fact that 38% of the time that I get a dealt a long running minor in this position, I bid 1N. In the second round of the game, each pair defines an overcall structure (once again accompanied by an response structure assuming no further competition). This overcall structure is based on the definition of the bids chosen during stage one of the process. It is important to note that the definition of a bid includes a specific set of probability density functions using in defining bids with non-deterministic meanings. This game continues for multiple rounds until the set of bidding sequences has been exhausted. For better or worse, the powers that be have chosen to use this multi-stage model with full disclosure of methods as the basis for selecting bidding system. In some ways this makes a lot of sense. The actual bidding process is well suited to a multi-stage model. However, quite honestly, I am not sure whether or not it is possible for anything as subjective as a human to conform to this ideal. Obviously, this is trivial for some type of computer program. Where Eric states that he wants to "apply judgement" to his decisions to open weak preemptive bids against players who chose to use penalty oriented methods, he is violating the basic "rules" of the bidding game. He has specifically admitted that he is deviating from his "normal" methods based the decisions that his opponents are making during later stages of the bidding game. By iterating his opening style in response to his expectations of the opponents response structures, he is attempting to change this multi-stage game into a simultaneous one. It is important to note, that this strategy is only effective in the absence of full disclosure. If players are able to properly understand the actual parameters of the bidding style that Eric is using, they will be able to design an optimal response structure. Richard -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOc9dObFdMFbo8dHHEQK3OwCgza+B0UPym6FeEI19uI6R/tljItgAn3HY wFi6bScBGY1mdr128r/8f7MI =drcx -----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 Sep 26 00:11:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8PEAu800025 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 00:10:56 +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-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 e8PEAnt00021 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 00:10:50 +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 e8PEW0T98241 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 10:32:00 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000925095737.00aaf6e0@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, 25 Sep 2000 10:12:17 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Merry-go-round In-Reply-To: <03ae01c024f7$beb18180$189c1e18@san.rr.com> References: <200009211551.LAA27658@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 08:46 PM 9/22/00, Marvin wrote: >The ACBL seems to think that L40E is their justification for the >"ELECTION" prohibiting change of system, since they cite it there. >L40E's words about ccs, that an SO "may establish regulations for its >use" should certainly include the authority to say you can't change >the cc during a session. I don't see anything in the Laws that says >otherwise. > >The ending of L40E might be pertinent: "(such a regulation must not >restrict style and judgment, only method)". This is what Eric and >others cite as permitting them to adjust the strength of calls on the >basis of anticipated countermeasures. Perhaps, but IMO not if the >adjustment violates what appears on the cc. > >I guess what I'm saying is that once an initial action is described on >the cc, that action can be varied by "style and judgment," but only to >the extent that it does not conflict with what is on the cc. It could >be argued that the cc describes a method only in a general way, with >judgmental and stylistic deviations that modify the description >permitted by L40E. I don't think so. The cc should be accurate as to >the methods used. > >I could specify "light overcalls," but not make a light overcall >against penalty doublers without suit solidity. That is a judgment >that doesn't conflict with the cc. Nevertheless, I think it's wrong if >the sole reason is the fear of a penalty double. "Style and judgment" >deviations should be based on such things as the state of the score, >the skill of one's partner and opponents, things like that, and should >not be based on fear of a countermeasure used by the opposition. Judgment is inherently multi-dimensional and intuitive. There is no way you can be free to prohibit the exercise of judgment based on specific factors while not being free to prohibit the exercise of judgment altogther. Varying one's choice of calls based on one's judgment is either something a player has the right to do under the laws, or it is not. If so, an SO cannot abrogate that right. I see no way of reading the laws to permit an SO to do so only up to some arbitrary point, but not entirely. And on the practical level, I see no way of doing so effectively. Consider Marv's position, in which he suggests that it should be acceptable to vary one's calls based on the opponent's skill but not on their methods. What if one chose, absent any other knowledge, to base one's assessment of one's opponents' likely level of skill on their choice of methods?! Am I not entitled to infer that opponents whose CC says "penalty doubles of any interference" are more likely to "go for the throat" (potentially successfully) than more typical opponents would be? This strikes me as a finer hair than I would care to try to split. 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 Sep 26 00:36:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8PEZpr00062 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 00:35:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe53.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8PEZjt00058 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 00:35:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 07:35:36 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [209.206.15.103] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <000401c026f4$1915aae0$23c3e080@isi.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Alerts Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:37:44 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Sep 2000 14:35:36.0056 (UTC) FILETIME=[DE103780:01C026FD] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Willey To: Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 8:25 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] ACBL Alerts | -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- | Hash: SHA1 | | > I do not believe that putting people in a game where alerts are not | > used does anything to teach them to play in clubs anyway. I | > think it a dreadful method. -s- | I think that it is much more important to teach beginners WHAT they | should be alerting. | | I consider the British system to be severely flawed. What the British have got right is that the player who chooses to not use artificial calls does not have the worry of screwing up an alert procedure. The burden is placed upon they who go beyond the least common denominator of straight forward bidding by the extent of their use of artificial bidding. To have an alert system, this is as it should be. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas | The purpose of the alert system is to convey useful information. | By designing a system where every real world response 2C or 2D | response to 1N is alertable, you've made the actual alerts for these | bids completely meaningless. | | I understand the rational for trying to make the alert system simple, | but you are putting the cart in front of the horse. | | The alert structure should be designed to indicate that a bid has a | non-standard meaning. | Britain has chosen to define standard as artificial. I would argue | that this is not an effective treatment. | Most players employ relatively few natural treatments. There are | many natural bids (canape openings and repsonses) that should require | alerts. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 26 01:11:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8PFACx00092 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 01:10:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8PFA6t00088 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 01:10:07 +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 e8PFAOm72396 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 11:10:24 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000925103001.00ab8a20@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, 25 Sep 2000 11:11:31 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] ACBL Alerts In-Reply-To: <000c01c025c3$6cc564a0$c33467c0@isi.com> 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 09:04 PM 9/23/00, Richard wrote: >I think that the ACBL would benefit if they adopted a more systematic >approach towards alerting and bridge education. >The ACBL should define a standard bridge system. Presumably, since >this would be primarily used in North American, the system would be >grounded in 5 card majors and a 15-17 HCP 1NT opening. However, I >don't really care what they system was, as long as it is designed to >be easy to teach and playable. > >Defining this system will serve two primary purposes. Firm and >foremost, this system will define "standard bidding". If a player >makes a bid whose systemic meaning is different from Standard >American Purple Card (SAP-C), that bid needs to be accompanied by an >alert (or when appropriate, an announcement) Given that players are not (and should not be!) even required to understand in detail the nuances of their own system, it would be absurd to make a regulation (under the rubric of the alert procedure) that required them to to understand in detail the nuances of some arbitrary "offical" system in which they have no interest and have no desire to play. Moreover, I would suggest that any approach to regulation based on the assumption that there is (or that there can be made to be by decree) any notion of a "standard bridge system" that would be applicable throughout the ACBL, from Point Barrow to Cancun, is silly. Regulations based on such an assumption in the past have only come to grief. >Second. The bottom flight in club or tournament games should >restrict players to only use the SAP-C. By definition, the beginners >game will not have to worry about alerts or announcements or >whatever. At any point in time, players can chose to to change their >CC or add additional treatments. However, pairs that chose to do so >will need to start playing in more advanced flights. The ACBL is in big trouble already because, although it does seem to be able to attract new players to its novice games and bottom flights, not enough of these players choose to "graduate" into the "real" games. But at least now all we have to do to retain those members is convince them that they like playing bridge. Richard's suggestion would result in newbies identifying "ACBL bridge" with "SAPC", and so discourage novices who might love game if they were permitted to play it "for real" but dislike the system they were required to play. >The ACBL should actively work to promote this system. Please note >that promoting a systems is not equivalent to announcing a couple >games at a National. The dynamic success of "Classic Bridge" >certainly suggests that a more organized process is required. All >ACBL certified teaching programs and materials should be designed to >promote SAP-C. The ACBL should develop books and perhaps even >freeware computer programs to present the bidding system. It's easy to forget just how vigorously Classic Bridge was promoted. For months before the San Francisco NABC, where it was introduced, there were articles in the Bulletin singing its praises and claiming that membership surveys demonstrated that it was going to be so popular that every club and tournament was going to want to offer it. Of course, when the concept was first introduced, it was to be a game in which natural methods would be essentially unrestricted, while heavy restrictions would be placed on the use of artificial methods, and that original concept generated a fair amount of support and enthusiasm. But then the committee charged with actually drawing up the rules completely abandoned that original concept, and gave us "SAPC" instead, with the result being that they couldn't raise a Howell for it in San Francisco. >It is always easier to remember a logical structure rather than a >series of unrelated facts. Well, that explains why I have no trouble remembering my own methods -- including systems I made up as a novice 35 years ago -- but can never remember the details of SAYC or the [oxymoron alert!] "Classic Bridge system", and very much doubt that the ACBL's next attempt, whether it be promulgated as the basis for some silly event or as part of the alert procedure, would be any better. Which is really off the point, which is that even if it were a paragon of logic and simplicity, that still wouldn't come close to making it "standard", nor to justify requiring players, for whom it might not be anything close to either their own methods or their own notion of what's "normal" or "standard", to master it. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 26 01:21:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8PFL3e00111 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 01:21:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8PFKqt00107 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 01:20:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.0.ap (guppy)) id RAA04866; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 17:19:12 +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 RAA12154; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 17:20:45 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000925173042.0087e450@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 17:30:42 +0200 To: Eric Landau , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Merry-go-round In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20000925083911.00ab8e30@127.0.0.1> References: <035401c024c0$f95fcda0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000922085129.00aaff00@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:08 25/09/00 -0400, you wrote: >It would indeed. And it would be correct, since if I opened a preempt it >would conform to that description -- and Marv would presumably want to play >semi-business doubles of it. But my methods neither set some minimum for a >"very light" preempt nor incorporate the inference that a pass denies such >a minimum holding (if they did, that would certainly require disclosure, >and would be on my CC) -- any more than the fact that, say, a first-seat 1H >opening promises five hearts would mean that a first-seat pass denies five >hearts. AG : hmm. A LOL once opened 1C against me, on 2164 pattern, because she was playing '4-cerd diamonds'. I wonder what she would have opened with 66 in the majors. >> >>My feeling at this time is that a player should be able to trust what >>s/he sees on an opposing cc, and that changing methods in accordance >>with anticipated countermeasures may be okay with a weak or first-time >>partner (who won't know, or allow for, the deviation from method), but >>not when playing with a partner who could possibly be on the lookout >>for it. > >But we're not talking about changing methods. We're talking about using >judgment in applying those methods. You can still trust my CC; any preempt >I make will fall within the same minimum-to-maximum range as it would >against any other pair. AG : I would like to add that it is part of nearly everybody's system that preempts are not systematic with the 'right' hand ; it is clever practice to vary, and to impose the contrary would be excessive. > >Because nobody would understand a regulation that purported to make good >ethics require bad bridge. AG : some do (LAs are often inferior). Regulations may set the context within which >you may use your judgment, but can't forbid you from doing so within >whatever context they establish. Under current interpretation, an SO could >presumably pass a regulation requiring that any bid of 4NT must ask for >aces, but even under the WBF's "anything goes" policy I don't think they >would be allowed to pass a regulation that says, "If you hold such-and-such >a hand, you must bid 4NT to ask for aces." AG : there is, if I remember, a regulation that says you must open a hand than contains at least one king above the average, else you would be playing a yellow system. Of course it would be difficult to enforce if you once tried the effect of a pass on 14 HCP : 'I overlooked an Ace, your honor'. 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 Sep 26 01:21:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8PFLd200124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 01:21:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8PFLSt00120 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 01:21:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from p26s09a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.105.39] helo=pacific) by cobalt5-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13da1T-0004eB-00; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 16:18:27 +0100 Message-ID: <000701c02703$d3192700$276993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Roger Pewick" Cc: "bridge-laws" References: <000401c026f4$1915aae0$23c3e080@isi.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Alerts Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 16:15:46 +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<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> ----- Original Message ----- From: Roger Pewick To: blml Sent: 25 September 2000 15:37 Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Alerts ------------------- \x/ ---------------- > Most players employ relatively few natural treatments > +=+ I think it is dangerous for any one of us to make assumptions about the experience in any part of the world unless we are familiar with 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 Tue Sep 26 01:32:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8PFVq500139 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 01:31:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8PFVlt00135 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 01:31:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ca452194 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 01:20:09 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-002-p-213-7.tmns.net.au ([203.54.213.7]) by mail7.bigpond.com (Claudes-Hand-crafted-MailRouter V2.9b 15/12311636); 26 Sep 2000 01:20:08 Message-ID: <027b01c026a8$056f10e0$6ae036cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Fixing Broken Movements Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 14:21:04 +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 WARNING: Getting sidetracked a little .... Grattan Endicott wrote: >================================= >' The greatest fool may ask more than >the wisest man can ever answer.' ( 'Lacon'). ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> But less than the wisest cat? >>Quango writes >>> I have arranged for Nanki Poo to do the necessary so >>> they are now at >>> >>> http://blakjak.com/lwx_mtn0.htm >> >> Ssssnnnnnnaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrllllllllll !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >> >+=+ Is eithor of these intelligent superior beings any >good at checking law numbers and supplying any >missing references? +=+ Is "eithor" deliberate? :) If Quango and Nanki Poo would be as successful as DWS at being on the ACs which attract least subsequent controversy, then perhaps the two cats may be better suited as fully fledged WBF AC members. I have been rereading the "Composition" and "Personnel" sections of the CoP - "a balanced objective approach" - yes, Q and N P have some qualifications to be on ACs. Despite my recent criticisms, I surely have most of the humans beaten in any competition to make the most errors. I even managed to send a reply to the wrong BLML thread yesterday (to appeal #14 instead of appeal #11)! Peter Gill - the footnote is serious though .... PS: Sleepless in Sydney the Olympic city - I even went to the first ever Mind Sport Demonstration Match at the Olympics on Sunday - a chess match between two of the world's top six players - details available on request to those who didn't realise that Chess already has been conducted at the Olympics, with all the top FIDE (World Chess) people and the IOC's Marc Hodler in attendance. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 26 01:33:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8PFX8G00151 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 01:33:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hermes.isi.com (hermes.isi.com [192.73.222.27]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8PFX1t00147 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 01:33:02 +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 IAA26753 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 08:34:38 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard Willey" To: "blml" Subject: RE: [BLML] ACBL Alerts Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 11:36:08 -0400 Message-ID: <001101c02706$5315d280$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 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > What the British have got right is that the player who chooses to > not use artificial calls does not have the worry of screwing up an > alert procedure. The burden is placed upon they who go beyond > the least common denominator of straight forward bidding by the > extent of their use of artificial bidding. To have an alert > system, this is as it should be. I disagree that natural bidding is the least common denominator of straight-forward bidding for either club or tournament bridge. When was the last time you met a pair that didn't employ Stayman? How many players don't use 1N - 2D as either a transfer or GF stayman? (And I certainly want the alert/announcement system to convey information that can distinquish between the two bids) My basic premise is that the least common denominator should be based on what the mode of players employ. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOc9w57FdMFbo8dHHEQLc1QCggOtNZvs1CEx8LFr7AJSHhzV+PTMAnjHu NFd5xXAPswVSapbSkex6M4xz =1Ahq -----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 Sep 26 01:34:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8PFYVJ00166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 01:34:31 +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-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 e8PFYOt00160 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 01:34:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.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 e8PFYKQ97499 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 11:34:20 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000925113416.00ab4480@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, 25 Sep 2000 11:35:52 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Singing in petto (was : Compulsory Pause over Preempt) In-Reply-To: References: <200009241308.JAA04965@freenet10.carleton.ca> <200009241308.JAA04965@freenet10.carleton.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 08:29 PM 9/24/00, David wrote: >A. L. Edwards wrote: > > >I think I might have found the musical piece. Try the old classic, > >"Happy birthday to you/happy birthday to you/ > > happy birthday dear /happy birthday to you." > >It even has a built in regulator: if you sing faster than most > >people, just increase the length of the name; if slower, shorten > >it. With practice, you should hit 10 seconds with great regularity. > >(But if you forget youself and sing aloud, you could hit 10 seconds > >with great hilarity.) > > Brilliant! Works perfectly if I use Nanki Poo! Well, if you really want to use Nanki Poo, I get exactly 10 seconds for the first three lines of "A Wandering Minstrel" (through "songs and snatches"). 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 Sep 26 01:58:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8PFvsJ00186 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 01:57:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8PFvmt00181 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 01:57:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.24]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 08:58:02 -0700 Message-ID: <008901c02709$30b79360$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Alerts Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 08:56:28 -0700 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 Laval Dubreuil wrote: > rwilley wrote: > > > >The ACBL should define a standard bridge system. Presumably, since > >this would be primarily used in North American, the system would be > >grounded in 5 card majors and a 15-17 HCP 1NT opening. However, I > >don't really care what they system was, as long as it is designed to > >be easy to teach and playable. > > Fully agree. Why not something around SAYC use by many teachers as the > basic system and mostly use by on-line bridge players around the world. > Playing SAYC would not then require any alert.... nor announcement... > I Also agree. The ACBL Alert Procedure (AP) includes these sentences: "Natural bids that convey an unexpected meaning must be Alerted." What are the "expected" meanings? Where are they defined? The AP explicitly states that natural 2D/2H/2S signoff responses to a 1NT opening are not Alertable. Aren't these "unexpected"? "This includes strong bids that sound weak and weak bids that sound strong." What makes a bid "sound" strong or weak? The AP explicitly states that natural strong 2D/2H/2S openings are not Alertable. Don't they sound weak? "..and all other bids that, by agreement, convey meanings different from those ascribed to them." Ascribed where? In what document? Requiring players to Alert deviations from an official standard system specification would resolve these matters. I once wrote such a specification, just for fun. Unfortunately it did not resemble SAYC (a crappy system for inexperienced players) and so would not be generally accepted. Included in such a specification should be an appendix that specifies whether calls are forcing or not forcing in common bidding situations. Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, 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 Tue Sep 26 01:58:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8PFwB200193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 01:58:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8PFw4t00188 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 01:58:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA08705; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 08:57:53 -0700 Message-Id: <200009251557.IAA08705@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 22 Sep 2000 21:59:23 PDT." <000f01c024d7$ff6d5de0$c9307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 08:57:52 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: > South is Declarer. His last 2 cards are a Club and a Heart - both losers so > he shows his two cards and concedes. West has a Club winner and a Diamond > winner. East has a Heart winner and a Diamond winner. > > East admits to having revoked on a Heart trick at trick 5. East did not win > the revoke trick and the only tricks E/W won were the last two tricks. > > The TD transfers 1 trick as per 64A2. South now points out, that had he > known that East had revoked he would have played a Heart at trick 12 instead > of conceding and now there would be a 2 trick transfer (64A1) since East > would be winning a trick with a card he could have played to the revoke > trick. > > How do you rule? The claim laws don't deal with revokes very well; in particular, Law 64A2, which requires us to determine whether an opponent won a subsequent trick, can't be applied correctly when a claim occurs. This is a big hole in the Laws, and I don't recall it ever being addressed by any WBFLC decision. (If it has, someone will need to point me to the pertinent WBFLC minutes.) I'm presuming here that South conceded without specifying an order of play. If that's the case, then I'd go ahead and award him 2 tricks, since South *could* have played a heart first, if he had played it out. I know that L70A says to resolve doubtful points against a claimer, but this is a case where the other side has committed an infraction and the Laws don't really tell me what to do, so I'd feel perfectly justified in "winging it" and relying on L12A1 and perhaps L84E, here resolving doubtful points in favor of the non-offender, which I think should take precedence. -- 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 Sep 26 02:08:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8PG7uX00218 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 02:07:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8PG7ot00214 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 02:07:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.24]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:08:04 -0700 Message-ID: <009301c0270a$97fbed40$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000925091854.00b5f100@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] LI NAOP appeal Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:05:52 -0700 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 Eric Landau wrote: > My previous argument > merely asserted that a desire to attempt to reconstruct one's opponents' > hands from their auction is a legitimate "bridge reason" for wanting to > know, and therefore for asking -- at the proper time and in the proper form > -- what their bids mean, even if there is no possibility that the answer > will affect one's actions during the auction as opposed to during the play > of the hand. > I wish more players would realize that "the proper time" is not prior to passing in the passout position with partner on lead, when there could not possibly be a "need to know." Legal, I suppose. Proper, no. Maybe the Laws or a regulation should address this matter with more firmness than a reference to L16. Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, 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 Tue Sep 26 02:22:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8PGM0m00237 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 02:22:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8PGLut00232 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 02:21:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id pa452467 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 02:20:43 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-002-p-213-7.tmns.net.au ([203.54.213.7]) by mail7.bigpond.com (Claudes-Critical-MailRouter V2.9b 15/12322269); 26 Sep 2000 02:20:42 Message-ID: <039101c026b0$7b5a7800$6ae036cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Now about Maastricht appeal 14 Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 15:21:38 +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 If you find discussion of the merits of AC decisions at Maastricht distasteful, please ignore this post. Kojak wrote: > For anyone remotely interested I have looked over >the 21 decisions of the Appeals Committee in Maastricht. > >The ACs upheld the TD on 11 decisions. >The AC changed 4 decisions with minor impact on the >result. (Usually 12C3). >The AC blew it on 3 decisions #12, 14, and the most infamous >#19, and the TDs got it wrong on #21. Anyone want to argue >with my thoughts? I disagree about #21. I think both the TD and the AC were right! Since their rulings were different, my point is that this one may be close to a 50/50 ruling which could go either way. After all, the AC argument could have been: - A SOS XX of 2C exists. The ideal hand for such a SOS XX would be a 4450 shape with good intermediates in all three suits. This is exactly what North has. If he won't SOS XX with this hand, when will he ever SOS XX? On the other hand, the AC's actual argument the other way is reasonably persuasive too. Not an appeal of much interest, but IMO the TDs did fine on this one, but the AC's overruling of the TD was OK too. I'm not sure that the AC did blow it on the infamous #19, which has been much discussed on rgb, as IMO it does depend on the definition of "evidence" in the footnote to Law 75. I also feel that if they blew #19 then they probably blew #18 from the same match too, but without being privy to the exact "evidence" I find these two difficult to assess. #12 seems to me to be another tricky one where the ruling could have gone either way, so the TD's and AC's opposing rulings both look OK. Surely we should accept that there will always be cases where the decision (judgement) is close and may easily go either way? #12 raises an interesting point. The last paragraph of "The players" section of the appeal write-up suggests that WBF regulations prohibit calling the Director in the manner approved otherwise in Law 16A1. Is this so? The reason I ask is that it could be of interest to countries who might want to copy the WBF. 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 Sep 26 02:49:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8PGn3m00256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 02:49:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8PGmut00252 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 02:48:56 +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 JAA26318 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:38:27 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard Willey" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: RE: [BLML] ACBL Alerts Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 12:52:02 -0400 Message-ID: <001901c02710$edc45180$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 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20000925103001.00ab8a20@127.0.0.1> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > Given that players are not (and should not be!) even required > to understand in detail the nuances of their own system, it would > be absurd to make a regulation (under the rubric of the alert > procedure) that required them to to understand in detail the > nuances of some arbitrary "offical" system in which they have no > interest and have no desire to play. By definition, any alert structure requires some system to differentiate between bids that require an alert and bids that do not. Currently, the ACBL has chosen to generate a farily aribitary list of treatments and suggest that some of these require alerts, some require announcements, and others require delayed alerts. I am merely suggesting that it would be easier to remember and more logical if their was a logical structure to such a system. If anyone else can suggest a simplier mechanism that is anywhere near as effective for information exchange, I would love to see it. > Richard's suggestion would result > in newbies identifying "ACBL bridge" with "SAPC", and so discourage > novices who might love game if they were permitted to play it "for > real" but dislike the system they were required to play. Most of the novices that I have encountered and taught don't have many preconceptions about bidding. They certainly don't quit in disgust because they are being taught Precision rather than Acol. As long as the teacher is properly prepared to clearly articulate a logical basis for a bidding style, novice students seem quite happy to ape their style. > It's easy to forget just how vigorously Classic Bridge was > promoted. For months before the San Francisco NABC, where it was > introduced, there were articles in the Bulletin singing its praises > and claiming that membership surveys demonstrated that it was > going to be so popular that every club and tournament was going to > want to offer it. Classic bridge was flawed from its very inception. There is an old saying that a camel is a horse design by a committee. Classic bridge suffered from this flaw in spades. The proposed convention charts and structure was far too complex for players wanting a simplified game. All the promotion in the world won't matter if you have a poor solution for a problem. Furthermore, there is a great deal of difference between vigorously promoting and competantly promoting. The ACBL did a lot of work trying to create a groundswell and hype. They were remarkably short on details regarding just how this new version of bridge was going to simplify the game for end users. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOc+CsbFdMFbo8dHHEQKRvwCgzPy0uTs4kCyUI+4Ch6gvtfbf4wYAn3UE IQY+5uzGgB/tFUGeSWXi6Kvm =F8kb -----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 Sep 26 03:18:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8PHIC300313 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 03:18:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8PHI5t00309 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 03:18:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13dbt6-0001Hp-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 17:17:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 14:46:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] What are the logical alternatives here? 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 Adam Wildavsky wrote: >EW Vul > >W N E S > P 2H 2H is weak and could be a 5 card suit >P P 3C P >3H X P P 3H asks for a heart stop and pass denies one >3S P 3N P 3N shows a partial heart stop, typically Qx or Jxx > >AKQJ >843 >A65 >876 > >This is an ACBL Flight "A" game. In the ACBL a logical alternative is >interpreted as follows: > >"The Law's phrase "logical alternative" is intended to exclude extreme >interpretations: it means neither "any conceivable alternative" on the one >hand, nor, on the other, "clearly preferable alternative." A logical >alternative is a call that would be seriously considered by at least a >substantial minority of equivalent players, acting on the basis of all the >information legitimately available." > >For further discussion, and a good example, see > > http://www.bridgeworld.com/sampler/samed.html > >Please reply privately and I'll summarize for the list. I'll post >details of the case as well. To be honest, I am not quite sure what the question is. I presume the hand given is West although I have known some players who would bid that way if it was the North hand. Now, what LAs are you talking about? Do you mean actions in response to 3NT? OK, you are a bit fixed. well, redouble seems completely obvious. If you do not allow redouble, then I suppose pass, 4C, 4H and 4S are all ACBL LAs. -- 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 Sep 26 03:27:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8PHQxc00329 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 03:27:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tonnant.cnchost.com (tonnant.concentric.net [207.155.248.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8PHQrt00324 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 03:26:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from [216.112.239.190] (w190.z216112239.nyc-ny.dsl.cnc.net [216.112.239.190]) by tonnant.cnchost.com id NAA00821; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 13:26:49 -0400 (EDT) [ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.10] Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 13:24:25 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] What are the logical alternatives here? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 1:09 AM -0400 9/25/00, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >EW Vul > >W N E S > P 2H 2H is weak and could be a 5 card suit >P P 3C P >3H X P P 3H asks for a heart stop and pass denies one >3S P 3N P 3N shows a partial heart stop, typically Qx or Jxx > >AKQJ >843 >A65 >876 > >This is an ACBL Flight "A" game. In the ACBL a logical alternative >is interpreted as follows: > >"The Law's phrase "logical alternative" is intended to exclude extreme >interpretations: it means neither "any conceivable alternative" on the one >hand, nor, on the other, "clearly preferable alternative." A logical >alternative is a call that would be seriously considered by at least a >substantial minority of equivalent players, acting on the basis of all the >information legitimately available." > >For further discussion, and a good example, see > > http://www.bridgeworld.com/sampler/samed.html > >Please reply privately and I'll summarize for the list. I'll post >details of the case as well. I left out a couple of things. Most importantly the game is matchpoints. Secondly the hand I gave is the West hand - everyone who wrote worked that out, but I should have said so. I've received a half-dozen replies so far, all of them useful. More would be welcome! I'll post a summary and details of the case Tuesday evening, US Eastern time. Adam Wildavsky -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 26 04:15:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8PIFcB00359 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 04:15:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8PIFTt00355 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 04:15:29 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e8PIFfS23158 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 14:15:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200009251815.e8PIFfS23158@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Alerts To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 14:15:40 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <008901c02709$30b79360$189c1e18@san.rr.com> from "Marvin L. French" at Sep 25, 2000 08:56:28 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 Marvin L. French writes: > > "Natural bids that convey an unexpected meaning must be Alerted." > > What are the "expected" meanings? Where are they defined? The AP > explicitly states that natural 2D/2H/2S signoff responses to a 1NT > opening are not Alertable. Aren't these "unexpected"? > > "This includes strong bids that sound weak and weak bids that sound > strong." > > What makes a bid "sound" strong or weak? The AP explicitly states that > natural strong 2D/2H/2S openings are not Alertable. Don't they sound > weak? Depends on where you're playing in the ACBL. I've played most frequently in Eastern Ontario, West Quebec and New York City. I used to play ACOL Sauvage (Mostly stone-age ACOL but strong NT at all vulnerabilities). Farly common in the Ottawa area -- certainly nobody would assume a 2H opening was weak. In New York City though we found that it was universally assumed that our 2 bids were weak. I found it an ethical problem. Didn't want to change methods so we started to use sit-down alerts about our 2 bids (and the fact that we opened 4 card majors -- another thing that seemed alien to the New York club scene) Here's the trick though. Didn't dawn on me until I listened to a nasty post-mortem (One defender essentially offered partner a choice of -1100 or 4SXX with an overtrick after doubling on the auction. Except our auction -- which sounded like a stagger into game -- was an ACOL 2 and positive response followed by a mild slam try. No alerts because it was all natural.) The ACBL's a damned big organization and it's impossible to know what will be unexpected in any given area. -- 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 Tue Sep 26 04:23:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8PINkx00371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 04:23:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8PINdt00367 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 04:23:40 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e8PINuB23512 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 14:23:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200009251823.e8PINuB23512@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] What are the logical alternatives here? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 14:23:55 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at Sep 25, 2000 02:46:42 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 David Stevenson writes: > > Do you mean actions in response to 3NT? OK, you are a bit fixed. > well, redouble seems completely obvious. Only if it shows doubt. Only the most prepared partnerships have discussed what a redouble of an un-doubled contract shows. It is a handy agreement to have 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 Tue Sep 26 05:29:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8PJTKl00403 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 05:29:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8PJTDt00399 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 05:29:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4fg.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.17.240]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA23643 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 15:29:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <018f01c02727$66ad11c0$f011f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Now about Maastricht appeal 14 Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 15:32:52 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk We have an international player with 14 top tricks. She becomes flustered when an opponent shows out on the third round while she is running AKQJxxx opposite partner's void. She follows the advice of her team captain and takes some time to calm down before proceeding. Her partner, worried about time penalties warns her to "hurry up". At some later point she manages to remember to count to 13 at least as well as the average club players. (Let's see...three on the first trick and three on the second trick makes six, and two on the third trick makes 8 and I still have Jxxx makes 12 and there's only one more out. Oh how silly of me. I have seven spades running then four clubs and three top tricks in the reds. I can claim!) Do we really want to believe she would not be overwhelmingly likely to manage this rather basic skill once her panic subsided? If anything the inappropriate comment from partner would seem more likely to make her botch the hand from nervousnesss rather than bring it home in the manner 95% of decent novices who had paid attention to their lessons should well have done. I think the committee got this one just right; only the fact that they (correctly I think) charged 2 IMPs for the foreign language inappropriate comment which violated CoC, turning the director's PPw into a PPf made it appropriate to return the deposit. Craig Senior >+=+ It looks to me as though the committee >may have ruled that it was not at all probable >that (this) declarer would have failed to make >13 tricks. That seems to be the implication of >the statements in the report. It is also plain >that the AC accepted the explanation of >what was said. > I think the onus on the AC is to deal with >the lie of the cards as they are. Any remark >about other distributions, even if interesting, >would be incidental and not essential to the >decision. ~ 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 Sep 26 05:42:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8PJg8G00426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 05:42:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8PJg0t00419 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 05:42:00 +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 MAA12459; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 12:41:54 -0700 Message-Id: <200009251941.MAA12459@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] What are the logical alternatives here? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 25 Sep 2000 14:23:55 PDT." <200009251823.e8PINuB23512@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 12:41:54 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ron Johnson wrote: > David Stevenson writes: > > > > Do you mean actions in response to 3NT? OK, you are a bit fixed. > > well, redouble seems completely obvious. > > Only if it shows doubt. Only the most prepared partnerships have > discussed what a redouble of an un-doubled contract shows. It is > a handy agreement to have though. For what it's worth, I believe this to be an inferior agreement. IMHO, it's much better to use a double to show doubt, and reserve the redouble as a relay to the next higher call, over which redoubler can either pass to play or make a further descriptive bid. -- 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 Sep 26 05:42:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8PJgAi00427 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 05:42:10 +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.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.211.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e8PJfvt00417 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 05:41:58 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 65961 invoked for bounce); 25 Sep 2000 19:41:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.41.206) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 25 Sep 2000 19:41:45 -0000 Message-ID: <04a101c02728$e4130240$903a1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000914080035.00ab02d0@127.0.0.1> <003401c01e6d$d72700e0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> <004b01c0234f$8e011cc0$0200000a@mindspring.com> <39C9F4C8.89AB457A@village.uunet.be> <027201c0241f$ff60e460$189c1e18@san.rr.com> <39CB1282.B6430D9A@village.uunet.be> <000a01c0248f$85df48a0$d46693c3@pacific> Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 21:43:32 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Grattan Endicott" wrote: > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws ; Grattan Endicott > > Sent: 22 September 2000 09:04 > Subject: Re: [BLML] Board spoiled by director > > > > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > > > > What is it Marv, don't you trust me ? > > > > And yet both David and Ton have also said this. > > > > But we don't remember where it was decided. > > > > Grattan - please help the doubting Thomases. > > > +=+ I see nothing from Mr. Dehn. :-)) I don't remember either when it was decided. 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 Sep 26 06:17:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8PKGpj00457 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 06:16:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8PKGit00453 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 06:16:45 +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 e8PKGdO20724 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 16:16:39 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000925131808.00a96c50@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, 25 Sep 2000 16:15:55 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] Merry-go-round In-Reply-To: <000601c026fa$98cc9e00$23c3e080@isi.com> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000925083911.00ab8e30@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:12 AM 9/25/00, Richard wrote: >Trying to define preempt style using as simple a metric as minimum >and maximum HCP ranges is completely facetious, Eric, and you should >know this as well as anyone. It is, and I do. But I never said anything whatsoever about HCP ranges -- the introduction of HCP into this discussion is purely Richard's doing. I define the range of my preempts by something along the lines of "when I open at the three level I will hold a hand no weaker than [some hand] and no stronger than [some other hand]. If I purported to claim that the range for my preempts (or anyone else's who knew what preempts are about) could be defined strictly in terms of HCP, I would indeed be making a joke. >My academic background is in game theory. As a result, I have a >tendency to approach many of these questions in a somewhat "Ivory >Tower" manner. I will certainly admit that the arguement that I am >going to make here is more suited towards a set of automatons or >computer programs playing one another than a set of real world bridge >players. None-the-less, I think that this example conforms to the >intentions of the laws. No problem with an ivory tower approach. Building theoretical models of the game of bridge can be both fun and educational. But it's not the same as playing it. >The Merry-Go-Round problem can be easily avoided as long as the >decision to adopt bids can be modelled as a multi-stage game. In the >first round of the game, each player defines a set of opening bids, >along with a response structure in uncontested auctions. Fine, as long as we understand that to "define" one's actions isn't the same as to specify exactly what one's actions will be in every conceivable circumstance and undertake to never deviate from that specification. >It is important to note, that players have the choice of using mixed >strategies when defining individual bids. >Simply put, a mixed strategy is one that includes non-deterministic >behaviour. As an example, I might chose to randomize my style for >opening a third seat opening bids. I might chose to opening a hand >like > >AKQxxx KQx x xxx > >1S 34% of the time >2S 33% of the time >3S 33% of the time. > >In a similar fashion, my 1N overcall might show 16 - 18 HCP balanced >88% of the time. The remaining 12% of the time, the 1N would be >based on the fact that 38% of the time that I get a dealt a long >running minor in this position, I bid 1N. > >In the second round of the game, each pair defines an overcall >structure (once again accompanied by an response structure assuming >no further competition). This overcall structure is based on the >definition of the bids chosen during stage one of the process. It is >important to note that the definition of a bid includes a specific >set of probability density functions using in defining bids with >non-deterministic meanings. > >This game continues for multiple rounds until the set of bidding >sequences has been exhausted. Mixed strategies have nothing to do with the issue at hand, which concerns not random variations based on some pre-determined density function, but rather deliberate variations based on one's on-the-spot assessment of the tactical situation. >For better or worse, the powers that be have chosen to use this >multi-stage model with full disclosure of methods as the basis for >selecting bidding system. I do not believe this. I not even sure that the "powers that be" would understand what Richard is talking about. They are bridge players, not game-theorists. >In some ways this makes a lot of sense. >The actual bidding process is well suited to a multi-stage model. It is, indeed, but, as any scientist knows, the model of a process is not the process itself, and what doesn't make sense would be failing to distinguish them. >However, quite honestly, I am not sure whether or not it is possible >for anything as subjective as a human to conform to this ideal. >Obviously, this is trivial for some type of computer program. Whether possible or not, a human who did so would not be playing a game, he would be exercising an algorithm. There are, of course, those -- and I suspect Richard is among them -- who believe that it is winning strategy to apply one's "bidding algorithm" blindly -- that the best way to be successful at bridge is to emulate a computer program in one's bidding -- and they may even be right. But it would be very wrong to impose the consequences of those beliefs on those of us who believe that they will be more successful if they incorporate into their bidding decisions such intangibles as "table feel", their evaluation of their opponents, and their judgment of the tactical situation at any given moment. >Where Eric states that he wants to "apply judgement" to his decisions >to open weak preemptive bids against players who chose to use penalty >oriented methods, he is violating the basic "rules" of the bidding >game. He has specifically admitted that he is deviating from his >"normal" methods based the decisions that his opponents are making >during later stages of the bidding game. By iterating his opening >style in response to his expectations of the opponents response >structures, he is attempting to change this multi-stage game into a >simultaneous one. I do not "deviat[e] from [my] normal methods". What I do is employ my "normal methods" (fully disclosed, of course), which permit variation based on tactical judgment. My methods are the analog of a battle plan. If you are going into battle, you maximize your chance of survival if you start with a sound battle plan. But if you persist in carrying out that plan in every detail once the shooting starts, you will surely wind up dead. >It is important to note, that this strategy is only effective in the >absence of full disclosure. If players are able to properly >understand the actual parameters of the bidding style that Eric is >using, they will be able to design an optimal response structure. My opponents are entitled to understand the meaning of the parameters of my bidding style, which I fully reveal, but not the value which I assign to those parameters when judging what call to make; that would be, in many cases, tantamount to showing them my hand. They are entitled to know, for example, that I will tighten up my preempts against players who I believe defend particularly well, but not whether I consider them to be such players. If the regulations were as Richard suggests, forbidding the exercise of tactical judgment, or, equivalently, forbidding the incorporation of variability based on that judgment into one's bidding methods, bridge would no longer be a game at all; it would be merely a mathematical exercise. I must be allowed to use some measure of judgment if my presence at the table during the auction is to mean anything; otherwise I could just submit my "bidding methods" on paper and allow an event official to actually look at the dealt hands and apply my algorithm to them, then call me in when it's time to play the contract. Moreover, I must not only be free to vary my calls based on my judgment, but I must be allowed to make those judgments intuitively if I choose to trust my intuition over some deterministic analysis. The rules cannot force me to delve into the depths of my subconscious to insure that my intuitive judgment is actually based on my evaluation of my opponents' personalities, or their current state of mind, or their level of ability, but not their methods, as I will not (from the defintion of "intuitive") be capable of doing 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 Sep 26 06:21:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8PKKxV00469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 06:20:59 +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-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 e8PKKmt00465 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 06:20:49 +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 13dejy-0002i6-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 21:20:45 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 19:26:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Alerts References: <000401c026f4$1915aae0$23c3e080@isi.com> In-Reply-To: <000401c026f4$1915aae0$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 do not believe that putting people in a game where alerts are not >> used does anything to teach them to play in clubs anyway. I >> think it a dreadful method. > >Nearly all the bridge teachers that I talk to stress the importance >of being able to focus their instructions. >It is extremely difficult for new players to multi-task and >simultaneously worry about about the correct bid to make with their >hand and whether or not to alert/announce. > >> In England you alert Stayman. Of course, our L&EC gets a >> fair amount >> of stick about that [the normal complaints about our alerting are >> twofold: there should be extra rules, and the total rules should be >> simpler!!!] but it has one side advantage: it teaches beginners to >> alert. > >I think that it is much more important to teach beginners WHAT they >should be alerting. > >I consider the British system to be severely flawed. >The purpose of the alert system is to convey useful information. >By designing a system where every real world response 2C or 2D >response to 1N is alertable, you've made the actual alerts for these >bids completely meaningless. > >I understand the rational for trying to make the alert system simple, >but you are putting the cart in front of the horse. > >The alert structure should be designed to indicate that a bid has a >non-standard meaning. >Britain has chosen to define standard as artificial. I would argue >that this is not an effective treatment. >Most players employ relatively few natural treatments. There are >many natural bids (canape openings and repsonses) that should require >alerts. Sure, you can devise a more "correct" alerting system, as in the ACBL where no-one [absent Marv] knows the full alerting system. It is very easy to criticise anything by concentrating on the bad points. However, it is not convincing. The English [not British: we make no decisions for the Scots] decision on what to alert is based on looking at the wide picture not just the narrow one. -- 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 Sep 26 06:21:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8PKLBg00479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 06:21:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8PKL2t00471 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 06:21:02 +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 13dekC-0002i7-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 21:20:58 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 20:49:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk As at Lille and Warsaw, I wrote various articles for the Bulletin. The official Appeals write-ups appear at http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/appealse.html There were four scribes, Herman De Wael of Belgium, and myself of England being the two generally used. However, Grattan Endicott of England and Rich Colker of the USA also acted as scribes. I also wrote some serious articles on Laws-related problems, some in response to requests from officialdom, some I just felt like doing. They will appear in this thread, will be posted to RGB and will also appear on my Lawspage. They are How rulings are given: consultation Screen Huddles Calculation of Law 12C3 Queries on the Laws Screen Huddles - Reprise I also wrote four articles of my experiences as elsewhere and entitled them [unsurprisingly] Memories of Maastricht. They will appear in the thread Memories of Maastricht on RGB, and will also appear on my Bridgepage. Also will be included two other articles, namely: Help Me Please! Jack of Clubs ------------ How rulings are given: consultation By David Stevenson, England "Director!" What happens next? If it is a mechanical matter, the Director reads the Law to the players and that is that. However, suppose a judgement ruling is involved - what next? The Floor Director takes all the facts, tells the players to proceed with the next board, and disappears. Now the ruling is discussed among the Directors, and a decision is taken by consensus. The Floor Director does not decide on his own: in fact, on rare occasions he may actually disagree with the final ruling. If there is a lot of bridge judgement involved in the ruling, the consultation will include some uninvolved players. This is especially the case if a weighted assigned score is considered under Law 12C3. After the Floor Director finds out the consensus ruling, he communicates it to the players involved and tells them that they may appeal. If they do so it will be heard in peaceful surroundings in front of an Appeals Committee of between three and five people. The Committee does not re-consider the case from the start: their job is to review the Director's ruling, and one question that a Committee should always ask the appellants is "Why do you believe the Director's ruling to be wrong?". The Floor Director usually presents the case to them, but occasionally there is another Presenting Director, usually when the Floor Director cannot be spared from other duties [for example, if there are two appeals and he is the Floor Director for each]. When I write up an Appeals case, I want to show who the Floor Director is. He is important in my view because he is the person who gets the facts when they are fresh, using his skill to make sure he knows exactly what happened, and usually presents them to the Committee. However, Bill Schoder [Kojak] does not agree: "At this time I am unhappy with any specific Director being named because people who do not understand the process will assume the ruling is his. I may have a different view in future once the process is generally understood." -- 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 Sep 26 06:43:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8PKhDb00500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 06:43:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8PKh7t00496 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 06:43:07 +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 e8PKhem92871 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 16:43:40 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000925163128.00b4e860@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, 25 Sep 2000 16:44:36 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] ACBL Alerts In-Reply-To: <001101c02706$5315d280$23c3e080@isi.com> 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 11:36 AM 9/25/00, Richard wrote: >I disagree that natural bidding is the least common denominator of >straight-forward bidding for either club or tournament bridge. > >When was the last time you met a pair that didn't employ Stayman? >How many players don't use 1N - 2D as either a transfer or GF >stayman? >(And I certainly want the alert/announcement system to convey >information that can distinquish between the two bids) > >My basic premise is that the least common denominator should be based >on what the mode of players employ. Wouldn't a "least common denominator" system be, by definition, based on what the least common denominator of players employ? A system based on what the mode of players employ would be a "modal" (AKA "standard") system. There's a big difference. Indeed, this difference is responsible for the tension surrounding the ACBL's latest round of changes to the alert procedure, in which the "we shouldn't require alerts for methods used by 90+% of our players" (modal) school narrowly prevailed over the "we shouldn't require people who haven't changed their methods in 40 years to suddenly start alerting things" (least common denominator) school. Personally, I belive both schools are correct; I firmly reject the notion that an unalerted bid must have only one specific meaning. IMO, alerts should be reserved (as was originally intended) for meanings of calls that (modal or LCD) players do not expect, rather than for any they do not themselves choose to employ. 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 Sep 26 07:16:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8PLFql00529 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 07:15:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8PLFjt00525 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 07:15:46 +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 e8PLFfO24606 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 17:15:42 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000925164802.00b573d0@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, 25 Sep 2000 17:17:14 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Alerts In-Reply-To: <008901c02709$30b79360$189c1e18@san.rr.com> 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 11:56 AM 9/25/00, Marvin wrote: >I Also agree. The ACBL Alert Procedure (AP) includes these sentences: > >"Natural bids that convey an unexpected meaning must be Alerted." > >What are the "expected" meanings? Where are they defined? The AP >explicitly states that natural 2D/2H/2S signoff responses to a 1NT >opening are not Alertable. Aren't these "unexpected"? No, they are not. If I go out to play in an ACBL tournament, I expect that I will be likely to encounter pairs playing 2D in response to 1NT as a signoff, as a transfer to hearts, and as forcing Stayman. All of these are methods I "expect". Now if I happen to run across a pair playing 2D as natural and forcing, or as showing spades, that would be "unexpected". >"This includes strong bids that sound weak and weak bids that sound >strong." > >What makes a bid "sound" strong or weak? The AP explicitly states that >natural strong 2D/2H/2S openings are not Alertable. Don't they sound >weak? No, they do not. To my ear, they sound like bids that might be weak, intermediate or strong. Contrast these with 3-level openings, which "sound weak" precisely because my experience tells me not to expect to encounter pairs playing these bids as anything other than weak. >"..and all other bids that, by agreement, convey meanings different >from those ascribed to them." > >Ascribed where? In what document? Ascribed to them by a significant number of players, in their system notes, or on their CCs, or in their minds. Keeping in mind that "significant number" does not mean a majority, or even a plurality; it merely means "in sufficient number that such ascription will not come as a surprise to most players". Note the significance of "those ascribed" (potentially plural) rather than "that ascribed" (necessarily singular). >Requiring players to Alert deviations from an official standard system >specification would resolve these matters. I once wrote such a >specification, just for fun. Unfortunately it did not resemble SAYC (a >crappy system for inexperienced players) and so would not be generally >accepted. Aye, there's the rub. In real life, no specification of any "official standard system" will be generally accepted, because there is no generally accepted "standard system". One can invent a system, and if one is an SO can bless that system as "official", but calling it "standard" will not make it so. To suggest basing an alert procedure on such a system would be to stand with the nig-nogs who hassle directors with "I play standard, and I wouldn't do that, and he did, and he didn't alert, so he must have done something illegal". (As an aside, I expect the system Marv invented would probably make a much more sensible baseline from which deviations must be alerted -- not that I believe that there should be such a thing at all -- than SAYC, or anything else the ACBL might come up with. Has anyone out there ever met a pair who actually played SAYC before the ACBL decreed it to be the "official standard"?) >Included in such a specification should be an appendix that >specifies whether calls are forcing or not forcing in common bidding >situations. It would have to specify arbitrarily perforce, since if it were based on common practice it would require three values, viz. commonly forcing, commonly not forcing, and commonly played either way. 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 Sep 26 07:30:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8PLTik00544 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 07:29:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.211.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e8PLTbt00540 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 07:29:38 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 21577 invoked for bounce); 25 Sep 2000 21:29:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.41.206) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 25 Sep 2000 21:29:24 -0000 Message-ID: <05f301c02737$ee2d3ac0$903a1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <001d01c02626$063938c0$ead536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <003101c026a7$ae9b9680$c75608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastrict #11 Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 23:21:51 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Grattan Endicott" wrote: > +=+ WBF General Conditions of Contest, Section 7: > "Official Language > English is the official language of a World Bridge > Championship. During a match the players may > converse only in English unless both captains (in > team games) or all four players at the table (in > pairs events) agree to use some other common > language at their own risk. If necessary. each > captain is responsible for the provision of an > interpreter for translation into English. >From a previous European championship: Chief TD: "The official language of this tournament is broken english" One of the Brits: "And what are we supposed to speak"? 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 Sep 26 07:35:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8PLZna00556 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 07:35:49 +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 e8PLZft00552 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 07:35:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13dfuM-000Mcg-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 22:35:32 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 22:34:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht 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 David Stevenson wrote: > I also wrote some serious articles on Laws-related problems, some in >response to requests from officialdom, some I just felt like doing. >They will appear in this thread, will be posted to RGB and will also >appear on my Lawspage. They are > >How rulings are given: consultation >Screen Huddles >Calculation of Law 12C3 >Queries on the Laws >Screen Huddles - Reprise ------------ Screen Huddles By David Stevenson, England In the past, there has been a considerable problem with unauthorised information caused by breaks in tempo, even behind screens. There was an important decision rendered in Lille in 1998 (Appeal 22, Netherlands v USA: full details available at http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/98wbc_appeals.html) where a North American player delayed the passing of the tray beyond the normal tempo of a normal auction. His intention was merely to normalise the tempo to that of the actual auction which was slow throughout, but his Dutch opponent on the other side of the screen felt there had been a tempo break and acted ethically by following Law 73C, and missed a slam. The Appeals Committee granted the slam. The point was that the method of normalising tempo was being practised in North America at that time but not elsewhere. Now it has been adopted for WBF tournaments. In a simple auction there is considered no tempo break when the tray returns within fifteen seconds. So it is desirable to adjust the tempo so that it does take fifteen seconds. If there are two quick calls, then it helps to wait some time before pushing the tray. Thus the players the other side of the screen receiving the tray after fifteen seconds do not know whether either of the players had a problem, or which of them, or whether the tray was just delayed. Note that this helps even when only one side is bidding, the other passing throughout: if the tray returns every time after fifteen seconds, then the other side of the screen still cannot distinguish between a tempo break, and a deliberate delay of the tray. Players should get in the habit of not returning the tray until fifteen seconds have elapsed. Fifteen seconds exactly? No, that would be difficult, and then it would still be possible to tell when a return was out of tempo. The official approach per regulation and the Code of Practice is that the time should be randomised. Thus if the tray comes back after ten or twenty seconds there is still no idea what is going on and most "Screen Huddles" are eliminated. In high-level competitive or slam auctions it would be normal to keep the tray back for longer, say until twenty to forty seconds have elapsed. This will not be considered a tempo break either. So the decision at Lille might easily have been different if this policy had been official then. However the Dutch player would not have felt constrained by a tray returning slowly from the other side. Some people bang their calls down on the tray so they are audible the other side of the screen: this is very unfortunate, doing away with much of the good that this approach embodies. So, when you are playing, please place your calls quietly on the tray, randomising the time the tray takes to return, and remembering that any time around fifteen seconds means nothing, and longer if it is a complex auction. -- 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 Sep 26 08:11:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8PMB1800588 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 08:11:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8PMAtt00580 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 08:10:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.24]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 15:11:09 -0700 Message-ID: <017601c0273d$509675a0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200009251815.e8PIFfS23158@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Alerts Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 15:00:05 -0700 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 Ron Johnson wrote > > The ACBL's a damned big organization and it's impossible to know what > will be unexpected in any given area. > Yes, which is why the Alert Procedure should stick to specifics instead of referring to what is "prescribed" or "expected." Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, 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 Tue Sep 26 08:34:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8PMXnf00602 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 08:33:49 +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 (f75.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.75]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8PMXit00598 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 08:33:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 15:33:36 -0700 Received: from 172.167.81.91 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 22:33:36 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.167.81.91] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Alerts Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 15:33:36 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Sep 2000 22:33:36.0713 (UTC) FILETIME=[A5112B90:01C02740] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson > >The alert structure should be designed to indicate that a bid has a > >non-standard meaning. > >Britain has chosen to define standard as artificial. I would argue > >that this is not an effective treatment. > >Most players employ relatively few natural treatments. There are > >many natural bids (canape openings and repsonses) that should require > >alerts. > > Sure, you can devise a more "correct" alerting system, as in the ACBL >where no-one [absent Marv] knows the full alerting system. > > It is very easy to criticise anything by concentrating on the bad >points. However, it is not convincing. The English [not British: we >make no decisions for the Scots] decision on what to alert is based on >looking at the wide picture not just the narrow one. For the mathematically inclined, take the set of mappings which map a bid in sequence to a set of explanations. If YourTreatment(y,seq) intersect StandardMeaning(y,seq) != YourTreatment(y,seq), then the bid is alertable. Given this, it seems that the English model is designed to minimize the human-understood complexity of the mapping StandardMeaning. The ACBL treatment is to minimize d(StandardMeaning, YourTreatment) over the space of its members. This makes the alert proceedure far more useful on the assumption that StandardMeaning is well-known, which, unfortunately, it is not. But if you understood this paragraph, perhaps you are half the way there. I'll take the English system, even if it's clumsy as it's far less subjective. -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 Sep 26 09:26:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8PNPxG00632 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 09:25:59 +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 e8PNPqt00628 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 09:25:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.167] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13dhcr-0004Bg-00; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 00:25:33 +0100 Message-ID: <000701c02748$0f06b400$a75908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ron Johnson" , References: <200009251815.e8PIFfS23158@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Alerts Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 22:21:49 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 7:15 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Alerts ------------------ \x/ ----------------- > The ACBL's a damned big organization and > it's impossible to know what > will be unexpected in any given area. > +=+ I used to think this was the real problem. But one gets less certain of things, not more, and I do not hear of such difficulties in China or Russia, so why the ACBL? Must be the cantankerous independence of the mind or something? But then the Aussies have that too. Seriously; has nothing been done to put flashing lights on convention cards which bear such curiosities as strong twos and weak twos? (Depending where you are). Or maybe Edgar's suggestion of conical hats was a good one? - or bright yellow CCs? Should CCs and alerts be regulated by the regions in the ACBL? - or one rule the world around? ~ 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 Sep 26 09:49:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8PNn0l00650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 09:49:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8PNmtt00646 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 09:48:56 +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 JAA11879 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 09:44:16 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 10:44:43 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastrict #11 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 10:44:20 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 26/09/2000 10:41:42 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thomas Dehn wrote: "From a previous European championship: Chief TD: "The official language of this tournament is broken english" One of the Brits: "And what are we supposed to speak"?" In a qualifying match in the 1964 Olympiad, Brazil played Australia. The players were asked if they needed an interpreter. The reply: "No, we all speak Hungarian." Best wishes R -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 26 09:51:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8PNp2i00662 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 09:51:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8PNout00658 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 09:50:57 +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 13di1M-0003HU-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 00:50:52 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 23:04:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] What are the logical alternatives here? References: <200009251823.e8PINuB23512@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> <200009251941.MAA12459@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200009251941.MAA12459@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: >Ron Johnson wrote: >> David Stevenson writes: >> > >> > Do you mean actions in response to 3NT? OK, you are a bit fixed. >> > well, redouble seems completely obvious. >> >> Only if it shows doubt. Only the most prepared partnerships have >> discussed what a redouble of an un-doubled contract shows. It is >> a handy agreement to have though. > >For what it's worth, I believe this to be an inferior agreement. >IMHO, it's much better to use a double to show doubt, and reserve the >redouble as a relay to the next higher call, over which redoubler can >either pass to play or make a further descriptive bid. Excuse me. You are not allowed to double partner. I thought you knew that. [I have this horrible feeling someone out there is taking this seriously!] -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 26 10:45:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8Q0iJv00692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 10:44:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8Q0i9t00688 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 10:44:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13diqm-000IQj-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 00:44:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 01:23:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht 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 David Stevenson wrote: > > I also wrote some serious articles on Laws-related problems, some in >response to requests from officialdom, some I just felt like doing. >They will appear in this thread, will be posted to RGB and will also >appear on my Lawspage. They are > >How rulings are given: consultation >Screen Huddles >Calculation of Law 12C3 >Queries on the Laws >Screen Huddles - Reprise ------------ Calculation of Law 12C3 By David Stevenson, England Around the world there are growing numbers of Law 12C3 decisions where weighted scores are applied to do equity. Appeals Committees are able to give such decisions unless their Zone says otherwise [so they may not be given in North America]. Now, with the WBF Code of Practice, Directors around the world are also being given the right to give such rulings. However, not everyone seems certain how these decisions should actually be applied. Let us look at an example case. Declarer goes off in 3NT but has been misinformed. If he had been informed correctly he would have made either nine or ten tricks in 3NT so the Appeals Committee decide to give him 60% of 3NT+1 plus 40% of 3NT=. In fact, 4H is the obvious contract, making ten tricks. Some people have been known to work out 0.6x430+0.4x400=418. When compared to the rest of the field, all of whom get 420, that means this pair got a bottom, which is hardly what the Committee intended! Of course, if the Committee had given 70% of 3NT+1 plus 30% of 3NT= then that would be a top, since 0.7x430+0.3x400=421! Could you not round to the nearest score? Of course, and then this pair get as an average both times, but this is not what the Committee intended. The actual score given by the Committee was 60% of an excellent pairs score plus 40% of an awful pairs score, and any means of calculation that does not reflect this is not correct. The correct way to calculate a weighted score is to apply the final form of scoring for the board and then apply the weighting. In the example given suppose a top is 50 MPs. If 430 gets 50 MPs and 400 gets 0 MPs then the calculation of the weighting is 0.6x50+0.4x0=30. 30 MPs is a much closer approximation to what the Appeals Committee intended. Note that this calculation is not one that the Committee should be doing: it is for the Directors. The Committee establish the weighting as part of their decision and the Directors apply it in this fashion. What about teams, with imps and VPs? The method is still the same, with the Committee establishing the weighting. The Directors then calculate the results in imps for the various scores, then apply the weighting to the imp scores. Note that it is not correct to go further and apply the weighting to the VP score: Appeals Committee decisions apply to the results on a single board, not to the whole match. Let us look at a complex example taken from an Appeals decision in the Olympiad at Maastricht. In Appeal #5, Norway v Latvia, the score for both sides was adjusted to 50% of 2H= by North (NS +110) plus 20% of 2S+2 by West (NS -170) plus 30% of 4S= by West (NS -620) Since the score in the other room was NS +620, this is calculated as 50% of +730, ie 12 imps plus 20% of +450, ie 10 imps plus 30% of 0, ie 0 imps This works out to an 8 imp swing which seems an accurate reflection of what the Committee intended. -- 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 Sep 26 10:49:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8Q0nXH00710 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 10:49:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.email.msn.com (cpimssmtpu09.email.msn.com [207.46.181.31]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8Q0nSt00706 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 10:49:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from uymfdlvk - 63.23.12.19 by email.msn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 17:48:28 -0700 Message-ID: <058601c02753$5136f960$8e1c173f@uymfdlvk> Reply-To: "Chris Pisarra" From: "Chris Pisarra" To: References: <200009251823.e8PINuB23512@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> <200009251941.MAA12459@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] What are the logical alternatives here? Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 17:47:14 -0700 Organization: his wit's end MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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 Would all this fall under the category of convention calls after inadequate bids? Chris -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 26 11:10:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8Q1Ab900731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 11:10:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8Q1AVt00727 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 11:10:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA19508; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 18:10:22 -0700 Message-Id: <200009260110.SAA19508@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 23 Sep 2000 09:11:55 PDT." <3.0.1.32.20000923091155.0198bc9c@pop.mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 18:10:23 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Michael Dennis wrote: > At 04:30 PM 9/22/2000 +0000, David G wrote: > >On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Michael S. Dennis wrote: > >> If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. What South might have done, had > >> he known something that he didn't know at the time he conceded, is > >> irrelevant. The fact is, South's concession of the last two tricks stands, > >> unless one of the conditions of L71 are satisfied. They are not. After the > >> play of the hand, the director rules on the revoke. Did East win a trick > >> with a card he could have played to the revoke trick? He did not. EW did > >> not win either of the last two tricks, as play ceased as of the concession. > >> Rather they were awarded those tricks by rule, and one was transferred back > >> to South as lawful compensation for the revoke. > > > >I don't think this justification is valid, because it would apply > >equally well if East was guaranteed to win one of the last two tricks > >with a heart (for example, in the same situation as above, but hearts > >are trumps and East has the high trump). > > Yes, but what's your point? The point is that it's easy to construct a deal in which declarer gets punished for making a legitimate claim. K 5 4 3 K Q 2 A 7 5 K J 3 A 9 7 6 2 J 5 4 K Q 9 Q 5 South plays 4S. He wins the opening diamond lead and plays the high trumps. West has Qx, East has Jx, but East fails to follow suit on the second round. South now lays down his hand, conceding the jack of trumps and the two missing aces. The revoke now comes to light. If South had played the hand out, East would have necessarily won a trick with his jack at some point; the revoke penalty would therefore have been two tricks. However, according to Michael's theory, once South claimed, East could not have "won" any more tricks since the jack of spades was awarded by "rule". Thus the revoke penalty is only one trick, and South loses 30 points for no good reason. Why would the Laws' authors wish to punish those for making perfectly good claims? If this were the case, then no declarer should ever claim again, because of the possibility that a defender might have revoked previously and that declarer could therefore lose a trick by claiming. It's absurd to think that this could have been the drafters' intent. (It's equally absurd, in my view, to think that the opponents of a claimer would receive a score for a trick that neither opponent won---although it makes perfect sense to think that they could get a score for a trick when we know one of the opponents would have won the trick but don't know, or care, which one---which is the usual case when a concession occurs.) -- 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 Sep 26 11:11:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8Q1AwU00743 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 11:10:58 +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 e8Q1Aot00733 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 11:10:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivet9d.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.117.45]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA03275 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 21:10:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000925211015.01335128@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 21:10:15 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke In-Reply-To: <200009260018.RAA18433@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 05:18 PM 9/25/2000 PDT, Adam wrote: >> 1. Does the concession stand? Yes, because South could not have won either >> of the last two tricks, regardless of which way he played. Therefore, the >> last two tricks are credited to the defense. >> >> 2. Note that East did not win either of the last two tricks, nor did West. >> Play ceased at the concession, and any discussion about who won which of >> those tricks with which card is pointless. Never happened. > >I disagree with this interpretation, because it is bizarre. How can a >side get credit for having won a trick that neither member of the side >won? Easy. In fact, South will, under my interpretation, get credit for at least one trick his side never won. And under various score adjustments, players are frequently credited with tricks they never actually won, and even with scores for contracts they never actually played. It is one thing to say "one of the defenders will win a trick, >we don't know which one, and we don't care"; this is, in effect, what >usually happens when a concession occurs. But this is not equivalent >to saying "neither defender will win the trick". In fact, neither player will win a trick. How can we tell when a player has "won" a trick? The Laws are clear. Under L44 E and F, a trick is one by the player contributing the highest trump, if applicable, or the highest card in the suit led otherwise. That's the only legal standard for asserting that a player has won a trick. And East's actions do not meet that simple test. >Also, if you interpret it this way, it is easy to construct a >situation where, if declarer plays it out, the defender who revoked is >sure to win a trick and therefore suffers a 2-trick penalty; but if >declarer claims, the defender who would win the trick won't actually >win the trick, by your interpretation, and thus there's only a 1-trick >penalty. Do you really think the authors wished to punish people for >making legitimate claims? I don't know what to make of the authors' intentions, and find myself drawn to contemplate these only when the Laws themselves are unclear. Such is not the case in this instance. But to answer your rhetorical question, no, I doubt that the authors wished to punish people for making legitimate claims. Nor do I. But I reject your characterization of this as a punishment. As I hope I made clear, I intend to fully protect South's pre-revoke equity, in accordance with L64C, which may result in the two-trick restoration, depending on the effect of the revoke on the subsequent play. You seem to think that South is entitled, as a matter of equity, to the 2-trick penalty. But this is false. South did nothing clever to earn two tricks: they are to be awarded, if at all, in accordance with a specific procedure that lays out a clear, non-subjunctive factual predicate for its application. And that factual predicate is lacking in this case. Q.E.D. >Because it is so bizarre and so contrary to the essence of the game, I >cannot believe that's what the Laws' authors intended. Besides, if >they did, it would be such an unusual situation that one would think >they would have mentioned this. > >However, it's quite plausible to believe that the Lawmakers just >forgot to consider this case. The claim laws have been around for a >while, and while they don't address the question of which hand on the >other side will win the tricks that are conceded, there was never any >reason it would make a difference---until 1987, when Law 64A2 was >changed. It's certainly plausible to think that those who drafted the >new Law 64A2 just forgot to think about its effect on claims. > >I'll admit that your interpretation may follow the letter of the law, >but to me, it is so bizarre that it's obviously not what was intended, >and therefore I don't think directors are bound by it. Three times now you've characterized my reading of the applicable law as "bizarre", so now it's my turn. It is indeed bizarre to reject the plain meaning of the written text simply because it doesn't conform to your idea of the "essence of the game". I have read many of your posts, and generally appreciate your thoughtful analysis. It is therefore quite surprising that you seem so eager to elevate your own judgement about the essence of the game over the language of the Laws. You have eminent company in this regard, to be sure, but I hate to think you've gone over to the Dark side. 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 Sep 26 11:17:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8Q1HFA00760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 11:17:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8Q1H4t00756 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 11:17:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13djMh-000AsR-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 01:17:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 02:12:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes snip > >In Appeal #5, Norway v Latvia, the score for both sides was adjusted to >50% of 2H= by North (NS +110) plus >20% of 2S+2 by West (NS -170) plus >30% of 4S= by West (NS -620) > >Since the score in the other room was NS +620, this is calculated as >50% of +730, ie 12 imps plus >20% of +450, ie 10 imps plus >30% of 0, ie 0 imps > >This works out to an 8 imp swing which seems an accurate reflection of >what the Committee intended. This method is fine but not best. If I award 60% of 430 and 40% of 400 then I must add .6 to the 430 frequency and .4 to the 400 frequency and then matchpoint with a frequency table containing these fractions. eg 9 results (English scoring; 2 for a win) How David does it: Apply Neuberg to 8 results score frq mps 460 1 15.875 430 3 11.375 The weighted score gets 60% 11.375 6.825 420 3 4.625 plus 40% 0.125 0.05 400 1 0.125 Award 6.875 How it should be done: score frq mps 460 1 16 430 3.6 11.4 The weighted score gets 60% 11.4 6.84 420 3 4.8 plus 40% 0.4 0.16 400 1.4 0.4 Award 7.00 Why should it be done this way? Because the assigned scores have meaning within the context of the results found elsewhere on the hand and should carry their weight in the computation of the frequencies and matchpoints. This method does that. My design for the new EBU scoring system *will* do it this way and the scorer will enter all the weights for weighted and split scores as part of the input. It also involves having separate frequency tables for NS and EW, so it is possible that on a top of 16 the total of NS and EW for any one result may not equal 16. This is not a problem as the frequencies relate either to the NS field (with its split scores) or to the EW field (with its scores). NB Herman's programs seem to do this cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst "I agree, for what phone before fax to: 451 Mile End Road that's worth." 020 8980 4947 London E3 4PA DWS, 19/09/00 john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 26 11:25:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8Q1PLk00773 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 11:25:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8Q1PCt00769 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 11:25:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13djUU-000Gnj-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 01:25:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 02:23:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke References: <3.0.1.32.20000923091155.0198bc9c@pop.mindspring.com> <200009260110.SAA19508@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200009260110.SAA19508@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <200009260110.SAA19508@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >Michael Dennis wrote: > >> At 04:30 PM 9/22/2000 +0000, David G wrote: >> >On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Michael S. Dennis wrote: >> >> If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. What South might have done, had >> >> he known something that he didn't know at the time he conceded, is >> >> irrelevant. The fact is, South's concession of the last two tricks stands, >> >> unless one of the conditions of L71 are satisfied. They are not. After the >> >> play of the hand, the director rules on the revoke. Did East win a trick >> >> with a card he could have played to the revoke trick? He did not. EW did >> >> not win either of the last two tricks, as play ceased as of the concession. >> >> Rather they were awarded those tricks by rule, and one was transferred back >> >> to South as lawful compensation for the revoke. >> > >> >I don't think this justification is valid, because it would apply >> >equally well if East was guaranteed to win one of the last two tricks >> >with a heart (for example, in the same situation as above, but hearts >> >are trumps and East has the high trump). >> >> Yes, but what's your point? > >The point is that it's easy to construct a deal in which declarer gets >punished for making a legitimate claim. > > K 5 4 3 > K Q 2 > A 7 5 > K J 3 > > A 9 7 6 2 > J 5 4 > K Q 9 > Q 5 > >South plays 4S. He wins the opening diamond lead and plays the high >trumps. West has Qx, East has Jx, but East fails to follow suit on >the second round. South now lays down his hand, conceding the jack of >trumps and the two missing aces. The revoke now comes to light. > >If South had played the hand out, East would have necessarily won a >trick with his jack at some point; the revoke penalty would therefore >have been two tricks. However, according to Michael's theory, once >South claimed, East could not have "won" any more tricks since the >jack of spades was awarded by "rule". Thus the revoke penalty is only >one trick, and South loses 30 points for no good reason. > Try Law 64C -- John (MadDog) Probst "I agree, for what phone before fax to: 451 Mile End Road that's worth." 020 8980 4947 London E3 4PA DWS, 19/09/00 john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 26 11:28:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8Q1SLi00787 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 11:28:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8Q1SEt00783 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 11:28:15 +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 13djXW-000JjS-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 01:28:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 02:26:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht 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 e8Q1SIt00784 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > I also wrote some serious articles on Laws-related problems, some in >response to requests from officialdom, some I just felt like doing. >They will appear in this thread, will be posted to RGB and will also >appear on my Lawspage. They are > >How rulings are given: consultation >Screen Huddles >Calculation of Law 12C3 >Queries on the Laws >Screen Huddles - Reprise ------------ Queries on the Laws By David Stevenson, England If you are interested in discussions on the Laws of Bridge and the various regulations around the world, then why not subscribe to the bridge-laws mailing list? There are a number of the top people who contribute, also many others. Come and try it, putting your point of view, and reading the opinions of Ton Kooijman, Kojak [Bill Schoder], Grattan Endicott and many others. To subscribe to this mailing list [there is no charge]: · Send an email to . · Leave the subject line empty. · In the body of the email you include: subscribe bridge-laws · Do not put anything else in the body of the email Alternatively, if you just want to ask questions, you may find the International Bridge Laws forum, a public discussion forum, more to your taste. Find the following page with your browser and press the button for the Forum: http://blakjak.com/rulings.htm -- 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 Sep 26 11:54:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8Q1rW300814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 11:53:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8Q1rPt00810 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 11:53:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13djvs-000IeO-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 01:53:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 02:42:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht 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 David Stevenson wrote: > > I also wrote some serious articles on Laws-related problems, some in >response to requests from officialdom, some I just felt like doing. >They will appear in this thread, will be posted to RGB and will also >appear on my Lawspage. They are > >How rulings are given: consultation >Screen Huddles >Calculation of Law 12C3 >Queries on the Laws >Screen Huddles - Reprise ------------ Screen Huddles - Reprise By David Stevenson, England There has been some discussion about my earlier article on Screen Huddles (see Bulletin #9). Chip Martel has raised a specific point, namely that with time penalties being applied players are not too happy about always delaying an auction. In my earlier article I stressed the advantage of delaying the return of the tray but I did not stress that randomising the huddle length is even better. Let us look at some examples. Suppose LHO (South) opens 1S, partner bids 2C, RHO bids 5D and you pass. Both RHO's 5D and your pass are very quick: should you delay the tray? In my view, yes. It is quite a surprising auction to be done quickly, and it is better that the other side of the screen does not know that neither of you had any problem. Furthermore, next time you have a similar auction, if that takes thirty seconds but there is a problem it will look similar the other side of the screen. Now suppose LHO (South) opens 1S, partner passes, RHO bids 2S and you pass. Both RHO's 2S and your pass are very quick: should you delay the tray? Sometimes you should, but not always. This is a good auction to catch up a little time. Perhaps it is going to go 4S all pass. What you should do is to randomise the time. If you hold the tray back sometimes on this auction then the other side of the screen will not know whether there is a problem or not. Of course when you do not delay the tray they do know there is no problem but in a normal auction that tells them very little. ------------ After I wrote this [and too late to put in the Bulletin] I had a discussion with Kit Woolsey. He thought I should have stressed that some auctions are known to be tempo-sensitive and it is important to try to randomise the tempo with those auctions particularly. -- 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 Sep 26 12:54:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8Q2rjg00862 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 12:53:45 +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 e8Q2ret00857 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 12:53:40 +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 MAA03588 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 12:49:02 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 13:49:41 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Red Alert To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 13:50:47 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 26/09/2000 01:46:39 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Relay systems are permitted in most events in Australia. The logic behind this laissez-faire approach by SOs is that the relays are used only in game/slam auctions, thus usually not damaging the opponents. (Also, it would be inconsistent to permit classical Precision to be played - with its artificial asking bids - but banning relay systems.) Alerts were designed to warn when a call was unusual or unnatural. But if *every* call in an auction is alerted, the helpfulness of alerting is diminished. Relay players therefore have an unfair advantage under current alerting policy. A number of blmlers have announced that their policy is to automatically enquire immediately about any alerted calls. But this is likely to result in time trouble if applied against a relay pair. So a popular practice in Canberra is to enquire about a game/slam forcing relay auction only when the final contract is reached. RHO, an Australian international, followed this practice of not enquiring about alerts when playing against my relay partnership in a Canberra imp Pairs. The auction commenced: Me Pard 1C (Alert) 1H (Alert) 1S (Alert) 2H (Alert) 2S (Alert) 3D (Alert) RHO held AQxx of diamonds. Hoping that her partner would be on lead in our eventual game or slam, and that a diamond would be the killing lead, she made a lead-directing double. Alas, pard had artificially promised a 3-4-5-1 shape, so 3D redoubled scored an overtrick. Note that RHO very ethically did not provide UI to her partner by asking *only* about the 3D bid. But it does seem unfair that her ethics were rewarded with minus 1240. Best wishes R -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 26 14:15:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8Q4EMv00919 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 14:14:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from poseidon.tcp.net.uk (poseidon.tcp.net.uk [195.80.0.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8Q4EGt00915 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 14:14:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from spock.tcp.co.uk (vt1-76.du.tcp.co.uk [195.80.1.76]) by poseidon.tcp.net.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id FAA26763 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 05:14:08 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20000926043239.00a99f00@popmail.tcp.co.uk> X-Sender: spock@popmail.tcp.co.uk X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 05:13:19 +0100 To: "Bridge Laws" From: M Smith Subject: [BLML] Which Squeeze Appeal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sirs I apologize for the length of this post but the hand is quite complex. Due to the vagaries of an event played over two weekends, we are in a position of having received a ruling on this deal but the appeal has yet to be heard. I would appreciate any insights that members of this list can offer - critical or supportive. For example, have we missed any important points in our favor or have we misinterpreted some inferences? First, the facts.... Declarer reaches 6NT on the following cards. Q 6 5 A K A Q J 8 4 3 A 6 A K 4 2 Q J 7 6 3 10 J 10 7 The uncontested auction has been 1H-2D (FG)-2H-3D-3NT-6NT West leads the C5 (playing fourth best and second highest from weak holdings) and declarer quickly plays low from dummy. East goes into the tank for a full two minutes, then wins the trick with the queen of clubs and then returns to the tank for a further three minutes before returning the two of clubs. Declarer wins the ace of clubs, cashes the top hearts, crosses to hand with a spade, and cashes his heart winners. The defenders hearts divide 3-3 and then West discards the 4-3 of clubs while East throws the C9 and the D2. These cards remain: Q 6 --- A Q J --- A 4 2 --- 10 J Declarer must now decide which squeeze to play for. Position A: Q 6 --- A Q J --- J 10 9 x --- --- K x x x K 8 A 4 2 --- 10 J The winning play is to cash two rounds of spades, squeezing West in the minors and relying on the diamond finesse. Position B: Q 6 --- A Q J --- J 10 9 x --- --- K x x x 8 K A 4 2 --- 10 J Now declarer must play a diamond to the queen and cash the DA to squeeze East in the black suits. At the table, declarer played spades. This failed when the E-W cards lie as shown in Position B. Declarer then claimed that he had been misled by East's long hesitation at Trick 1 since, holding both Q and K of clubs, he had nothing to think about. Declarer therefore placed West with the CK and played accordingly. East stated that he was trying to work out what to do at Trick 2 - whether he should return a club or whether a spade switch was needed to break up the impending squeeze. The ruling.... The Director, having consulted with a prominent member of this list, ruled that South was damaged. The ruling is that he would have made the contract 70% of the time and failed 30%. With N-S at the other table in the match making +1370 in 6D, this reduced E-W's gain on the deal from 16 IMPs to 3 IMPs. The arguments.... First, let me state my bias, since although I was not at the table I am a member of one of the teams involved - the E/W pair at this table are my teammates. a) Both declarer and the defenders are entitled to think about the hand as a whole before playing to Trick 1. The fact that declarer decided that he had nothing to think about should not prevent East from thinking for as long as he needs. Some might say that East should play to Trick 1 and then think or state that he is thinking about the hand as a whole. Should he? Is this not akin to declarer studying dummy for some time when he has a holding such as A-x-x facing a singleton in the led suit. He is not obliged to tell the defenders that he is not thinking about this trick (or, at least, no one ever does). b) The fact that East is thinking for so long might/should suggest to declarer that he expects to win the first trick. It seems clear that he is deciding what to return at Trick 2 (or how to discard when a red suit is run), rather than whether to play the queen to Trick 1. This suggests that he also holds the king rather than suggests that he does not. Furthermore, if the long pause suggests anything about East's club holding, it is that he holds both the king and the queen rather than something like Qxxx. With Qxxx or something similar, the play of the queen is automatic. Remember, that West's spot was the five and East may not be able to read the holdings if he has something like Qxxx. Can he really afford to duck when his partner may have led from Kxxx? With the actual king-queen holding, East MIGHT think he needs to decide which honor to play - ie whether he can afford to conceal the queen from his partner in order to falsecard declarer with the king. c) Declarer is a seasoned international professional player and both defenders are also very experienced. There is, thus, a reasonable expectation that East has found the best defence after thinking for so long. Yet, declarer's actual line of play assumes that East misdefended at Trick 2. If the layout is as shown in Position A above, then East could have broken up the squeeze by returning a diamond at Trick 2. On the actual hand, of course, doing so would be a fatal defense as it would remove declarer's losing option. The adopted line of play also assumes that West has led a falsecard at Trick 1 - ie. the five of clubs from K-5-4-3 rather than a true card from 8-5-3-2. d) With no outside factors, the chosen line of play (to cash the spades first) is the best percentage play. If the spades divide 3-3 then there is potential for declarer to make the hand on a show-up if East holds both minor-suit kings, as the fourth round of spades will force him to bare the DK at Trick 11. The suggestion that East holds the king of clubs (as put forward in b) above), however, might lead declarer to take the slightly anti-percentage and winning line of play. Far from misleading declarer as to the position, we feel that the break in tempo actually suggested the winning play, rather than what appears to be the best percentage play. e) Perhaps declarer was influenced to adopt his actual line of play because he could then claim to have been misled in the event that it was wrong. This is surely like having his cake and eating it too, which is something that we feel an AC should not allow. If you are still with me, thank you for your patience. I would appreciate any comments (positive or negative) Marc Smith -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 26 15:31:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8Q5TTF00965 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 15:29:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from sheffield.cnchost.com (sheffield.concentric.net [207.155.252.12]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8Q5TNt00961 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 15:29:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from [216.112.239.190] (w190.z216112239.nyc-ny.dsl.cnc.net [216.112.239.190]) by sheffield.cnchost.com id BAA11935; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 01:29:15 -0400 (EDT) [ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.10] Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20000926043239.00a99f00@popmail.tcp.co.uk> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20000926043239.00a99f00@popmail.tcp.co.uk> Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 01:29:15 -0400 To: M Smith From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Squeeze Appeal Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 5:13 AM +0100 9/26/00, M Smith wrote: >West leads the C5 (playing fourth best and second highest from weak >holdings) and declarer quickly plays low from dummy. East goes into >the tank for a full two minutes, then wins the trick with the queen >of clubs and then returns to the tank for a further three minutes >before returning the two of clubs. I was about to reply that had East held only one club honor, and had declarer made a play requiring East to hold both, we might be hearing a similar appeal. "What could the pause at trick one be for, but to decide with which club honor to win the trick?" Then I realized that the crucial pause is the pause before trick two. If East was confident of winning the trick he should already know what he's going to return, unless declarer's club 7 was a surprising development. It's the second pause that caused the problem. On the facts as presented I'd find that East violated Law 73F2: "Player Injured by Illegal Deception if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C)." East had ample reason to take time, but not to take it when he did. He should have taken all of his time either before the playing to the first trick or before leading to the second trick. I doubt very much whether he realized that declarer might draw an incorrect inference from his tempo, but whether he knew or not is irrelevant, since he could have known. Before deciding whether to adjust I'd want to see the auction and the entire deal. It looks as though declarer played West to have led the club 5 from a holding of K543. This is an interesting case. I would find no infraction, and thus no possibility of adjustment, had East won the first trick with the King. Adam Wildavsky -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 26 15:51:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8Q5pji00984 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 15:51:45 +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 e8Q5pet00980 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 15:51:41 +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 PAA22917 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 15:47:02 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 16:47:40 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Squeeze Appeal To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 16:48:47 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 26/09/2000 04:44:39 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Indeed an enterprising tale. The key paragraph is where Marc Smith wrote: "Some might say that East should play to Trick 1 and then think or state that he is thinking about the hand as a whole. Should he? Is this not akin to declarer studying dummy for some time when he has a holding such as A-x-x facing a singleton in the led suit. He is not obliged to tell the defenders that he is not thinking about this trick (or, at least, no one ever does)." This precise situation is covered by L73A2. The SO can require a mandatory pause on the first trick, but if it does not (or if the time for the required pause is exceeded), then an adjusted score under L73F2 might be assigned against *either* an offending declarer or an offending defender. If no compulsory pause applies, it is unethical to think about a future trick while having no problem in playing to the current trick. East's correct play on the hand was to play a club honour at trick one in the required tempo, then think at trick two. A second-best solution is to announce to the table, "Sorry, I am not thinking about this trick, just planning my play." However, if a defender says this, such a statement gives UI to partner that their card at the first trick is an automatic play. If I had been TD, East would have received a PP. Best wishes R -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 26 17:07:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8Q76ap01050 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 17:06:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8Q76Wt01046 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 17:06:32 +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 e8Q76JK28219; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 18:06:24 +1100 (EST) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 18:06:18 +1100 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@medvesajt.anu.edu.au To: M Smith cc: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Squeeze Appeal In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20000926043239.00a99f00@popmail.tcp.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 Tue, 26 Sep 2000, M Smith wrote: > Declarer reaches 6NT on the following cards. > > Q 6 5 > A K > A Q J 8 4 3 > A 6 > > > A K 4 2 > Q J 7 6 3 > 10 > J 10 7 > > The uncontested auction has been 1H-2D (FG)-2H-3D-3NT-6NT > > West leads the C5 (playing fourth best and second highest from weak > holdings) and declarer quickly plays low from dummy. East goes into the > tank for a full two minutes, then wins the trick with the queen of clubs > and then returns to the tank for a further three minutes before returning > the two of clubs. > > Declarer wins the ace of clubs, cashes the top hearts, crosses to hand with > a spade, and cashes his heart winners. The defenders hearts divide 3-3 and > then West discards the 4-3 of clubs while East throws the C9 and the D2. > > These cards remain: > > Q 6 > --- > A Q J > --- > > > A 4 2 > --- > 10 > J > > > Declarer must now decide which squeeze to play for. Position A: > > Q 6 > --- > A Q J > --- > J 10 9 x > --- --- > K x x x > K 8 > A 4 2 > --- > 10 > J > > The winning play is to cash two rounds of spades, squeezing West in the > minors and relying on the diamond finesse. > > Position B: > > Q 6 > --- > A Q J > --- > J 10 9 x > --- --- > K x x x > 8 K > A 4 2 > --- > 10 > J > > Now declarer must play a diamond to the queen and cash the DA to squeeze > East in the black suits. > > > At the table, declarer played spades. This failed when the E-W cards lie > as shown in Position B. > > Declarer then claimed that he had been misled by East's long hesitation at > Trick 1 since, holding both Q and K of clubs, he had nothing to think > about. Declarer therefore placed West with the CK and played accordingly. > > East stated that he was trying to work out what to do at Trick 2 - whether > he should return a club or whether a spade switch was needed to break up > the impending squeeze. > > The ruling.... > > The Director, having consulted with a prominent member of this list, ruled > that South was damaged. The ruling is that he would have made the contract > 70% of the time and failed 30%. With N-S at the other table in the match > making +1370 in 6D, this reduced E-W's gain on the deal from 16 IMPs to 3 IMPs. > > > The arguments.... > > First, let me state my bias, since although I was not at the table I am a > member of one of the teams involved - the E/W pair at this table are my > teammates. > > a) Both declarer and the defenders are entitled to think about the hand as > a whole before playing to Trick 1. The fact that declarer decided that he > had nothing to think about should not prevent East from thinking for as > long as he needs. > > Some might say that East should play to Trick 1 and then think or state > that he is thinking about the hand as a whole. Should he? Is this not > akin to declarer studying dummy for some time when he has a holding such as > A-x-x facing a singleton in the led suit. He is not obliged to tell the > defenders that he is not thinking about this trick (or, at least, no one > ever does). I would be cautious in asserting that both sides are "entitled" time to think about the hand without some Law/regulation numbers to back me up. > c) Declarer is a seasoned international professional player and both > defenders are also very experienced. There is, thus, a reasonable > expectation that East has found the best defence after thinking for so long. > > Yet, declarer's actual line of play assumes that East misdefended at Trick > 2. If the layout is as shown in Position A above, then East could have > broken up the squeeze by returning a diamond at Trick 2. On the actual > hand, of course, doing so would be a fatal defense as it would remove > declarer's losing option. > > The adopted line of play also assumes that West has led a falsecard at > Trick 1 - ie. the five of clubs from K-5-4-3 rather than a true card from > 8-5-3-2. I agree completely. Some analysis follows: 1. Declarer doesn't need to worry when either defender is squeezed in three suits on the run of the hearts, so we ignore that case. 2. Declarer knows that East holding KQC & KD knows he can be squeezed if declarer has 11 winners after losing a club. On the bidding, AC, at most 5H, AD are given so the danger case for that defender is when there are four spade tricks available... which requires declarer to have a 4513 shape. The only possible defence against this shape is to sit and hope declarer finesses diamonds at trick 12. Any other shape makes the defence immaterial. 3. When East holds KQC and four spades without the KD he can see that declarer can come to at most 11 tricks (3-4S 2-5H AC AD) without the diamond finesse and that the diamond finesse will give 12 unless there's a diamond void. So the only hopes here are that all the major suit tricks don't win. There's nothing for East to do about hearts (as he holds three small), but he knows his spades might be useful. When is a spade-club squeeze available? Declarer gets AC, presumably 5 hearts, presumably 3 top spades so only when precisely two diamond tricks are available does declarer need/have this squeeze... so declarer must have the 4513 shape. Against this shape there is no winning defence available & no others matter. 4. When East holds only QC and KD then the only possible squeeze is in the blacks on West... I can't construct a hand where ducking QC gains, so when the queen wins then East knows that both stoppers are above the threats so the squeeze will fail. A club exit is safest. 5. When East holds only QC and four spades without the KD, then the QC must be played, and when it wins, East can see that there will be buckets of red suit tricks available unless declarer has a singleton diamond or is missing QxxH with West. In the latter case 3S 2H 6D 1C is a likely route to 12 tricks. In the former, partner's diamond pip and club king will be squeezed when declarer has 4513 and can get four spade tricks. Winning defence will be to take out the diamond entry and hope that the spades will not run. Thus, in principle declarer can work out that the only likely holdings for East that require an active defence is when the club honours are split and the KD is onside. > d) With no outside factors, the chosen line of play (to cash the spades > first) is the best percentage play. If the spades divide 3-3 then there is > potential for declarer to make the hand on a show-up if East holds both > minor-suit kings, as the fourth round of spades will force him to bare the > DK at Trick 11. > > The suggestion that East holds the king of clubs (as put forward in b) > above), however, might lead declarer to take the slightly anti-percentage > and winning line of play. Far from misleading declarer as to the position, > we feel that the break in tempo actually suggested the winning play, rather > than what appears to be the best percentage play. Yes. > e) Perhaps declarer was influenced to adopt his actual line of play because > he could then claim to have been misled in the event that it was > wrong. This is surely like having his cake and eating it too, which is > something that we feel an AC should not allow. Adam Wildavsky wrote: > East had ample reason to take time, but not to take it when he did. > He should have taken all of his time either before the playing to the > first trick or before leading to the second trick. I doubt very much > whether he realized that declarer might draw an incorrect inference > from his tempo, but whether he knew or not is irrelevant, since he > could have known. The law you quote includes the condition that an opponent "who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action" who makes an action and who could have known about the consequences will incur a score adjustment. Exactly what constitutes a "bridge reason" is a matter for an AC to decide. The above analyses cover four pertinent cases for the defender in the East seat... he would only need to perform one of them and it is very likely that he would do so. The need to analyse the hand for squeeze defence is, to my mind, a sufficient bridge reason both to consider *not* winning an obvious trick to avoid correcting the count (although on the actual hand and almost any other, this East should deduce that ducking cannot be correct) and to consider carefully the choice of exit card. The presence of one case where a counter-intuitive exit is the only winning play is sufficient evidence that this position is not trivial and thus East will have had a "demonstrable bridge reason" for thinking about the hand. The presence of such a bridge reason prohibits score adjustment under L73F2... although I've had trouble convincing an AC of a "demonstrable bridge reason" in the past :-). I would rule no infraction occured and return the table result. Even if I had concluded there was an infraction, I believe that declarer's error was subsequent, rather than consequent. A declarer of this calibre refusing to admit the possibility of the defender needing to think at trick one with an "obvious" play available is sufficiently poor as to break the chain of causation between the defender's break in tempo and the failure of the slam. I would be tempted to award a PP to declarer for playing from dummy too quickly, but in the absence of a regulation to that effect & in acknowledgement of common practice would restrain myself :-) East should be cautioned about the effect of his broken hestitation, although this is regrettably common as well... How often have you seen a defender huff when declarer is contemplating his next move for a minute or two, and then furrow their brow to find a discard as he runs his long suit? 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 Sep 26 18:38:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8Q8be001095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 18:37:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.rdc1.md.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.md.home.com [24.2.2.66]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8Q8bYt01091 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 18:37:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc283631-a.twsn1.md.home.com ([24.13.100.27]) by mail.rdc1.md.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20000926083730.PZQQ10653.mail.rdc1.md.home.com@cc283631-a.twsn1.md.home.com> for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 01:37:30 -0700 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Alerts Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 04:37:30 -0400 Message-ID: References: <200009251815.e8PIFfS23158@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> <000701c02748$0f06b400$a75908c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <000701c02748$0f06b400$a75908c3@dodona> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 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 On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 22:21:49 +0100, Grattan Endicott wrote: >Should CCs and alerts be regulated by the >regions in the ACBL? - or one rule the >world around? As one of the (quite probably insignificant) minority of players who has moved from one jurisdiction to another (EBU to ACBL) I simply can't resist saying **YES, PLEASE** to the concept of one world-wide rule, unlikely to happen though it may be. It may not matter that much to the vast majority in face-to-face bridge, but (IMHO) it is FAR more necessary in online bridge, perhaps a suitable testing ground? Brian. (still peeved at being required to learn a system I neither like nor want to play solely in order to comply with OKBridge's damn silly tournament alerting rules - you must alert any bid which has a meaning different from what it means in SAYC, for the benefit of those who don't know about OKBridge) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 26 18:49:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8Q8nGD01112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 18:49:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (mta01-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8Q8nAt01108 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 18:49:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.5.171]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000926084906.LSXK16640.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 09:49:06 +0100 Message-ID: <001d01c02797$4892d060$ab05ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne.jones1" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Untimely question Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 09:53:46 +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 A situation presented this last week-end. E/W were late arriving, so no questions about system had been asked.CCs were on the table, under the bidding boxes:-) On the first board North passed, East opened 2D (this was alerted) and South passed. Immediately after passing, before West had called South reached for opps CC and asked what the 2D had been. What UI do you think North had if any? If you think North had some UI, what do you think is demonstrably suggested by this information. 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 Sep 26 19:15:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8Q9Efn01136 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 19:14:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8Q9EYt01132 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 19:14:35 +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 e8Q9EUE23115; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 10:14:30 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id e8Q9ETl29255; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 10:14:29 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 09:14:29 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 KAA03911; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 10:14:28 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id KAA17716; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 10:14:28 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 10:14:28 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200009260914.KAA17716@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, john@probst.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > >The point is that it's easy to construct a deal in which declarer gets > >punished for making a legitimate claim. > > > > K 5 4 3 > > K Q 2 > > A 7 5 > > K J 3 > > > > A 9 7 6 2 > > J 5 4 > > K Q 9 > > Q 5 > > > >South plays 4S. He wins the opening diamond lead and plays the high > >trumps. West has Qx, East has Jx, but East fails to follow suit on > >the second round. South now lays down his hand, conceding the jack of > >trumps and the two missing aces. The revoke now comes to light. > > > Try Law 64C > > -- > John (MadDog) Probst L64C only applies to established revokes "When, after any established revoke, ..." We need the WBFLC interpretation which says (something to the effect) to resolve doubt in favour of claimer if there has been a revoke by opponents. 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 Sep 26 20:17:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8QAGVA01170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 20:16:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8QAGPt01166 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 20:16:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-68.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.68]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA02340 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 12:16:17 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39CF9EE3.C3BF27A8@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 20:52:19 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: [BLML] Mind sports References: <027b01c026a8$056f10e0$6ae036cb@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: > > WARNING: Getting sidetracked a little .... > > > Peter Gill - the footnote is serious though .... > PS: Sleepless in Sydney the Olympic city - I even went to the > first ever Mind Sport Demonstration Match at the Olympics > on Sunday - a chess match between two of the world's top > six players - details available on request to those who didn't > realise that Chess already has been conducted at the Olympics, > with all the top FIDE (World Chess) people and the IOC's > Marc Hodler in attendance. > Hodler ? Our Marc Hodler ? has he made up his mind yet about the summer or winter olympics for the mind sports ? I believe it was Hodler who was backing the winter ones (being Swiss, bridger and skier, he would be) -- 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 Sep 26 20:26:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8QAQP401183 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 20:26:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8QAQIt01179 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 20:26:19 +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 MAA26872; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 12:25:49 +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 MAA06926; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 12:26:06 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000926123604.00889b60@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 12:36:04 +0200 To: M Smith , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Squeeze Appeal In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20000926043239.00a99f00@popmail.tcp.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:13 26/09/00 +0100, you wrote: > >West leads the C5 (playing fourth best and second highest from weak >holdings) and declarer quickly plays low from dummy. East goes into the >tank for a full two minutes, then wins the trick with the queen of clubs >and then returns to the tank for a further three minutes before returning >the two of clubs. > > >a) Both declarer and the defenders are entitled to think about the hand as >a whole before playing to Trick 1. The fact that declarer decided that he >had nothing to think about should not prevent East from thinking for as >long as he needs. > >Some might say that East should play to Trick 1 and then think or state >that he is thinking about the hand as a whole. Should he? Is this not >akin to declarer studying dummy for some time when he has a holding such as >A-x-x facing a singleton in the led suit. He is not obliged to tell the >defenders that he is not thinking about this trick (or, at least, no one >ever does). > >b) The fact that East is thinking for so long might/should suggest to >declarer that he expects to win the first trick. It seems clear that he is >deciding what to return at Trick 2 (or how to discard when a red suit is >run), rather than whether to play the queen to Trick 1. This suggests that >he also holds the king rather than suggests that he does not. AG : you would probably be considered right if East had huddled (even long) at his first turn to play, won the queen, then had played back a club in normal tempo. But his second huddle (after taking the trick, before playing a card to initiate the second) strongly suggests that the first tempo had only be caused by the question 'do I put on my queen ?' If he were thinking about what to play next, he wouldn't have to huddle a second time after taking the trick. So, indeed, his tempi were suggesting that putting the queen was not an obvious play. This could lead to an adjustment according tu laws 74D1 and 72B1. I think 70% are a little bit too much, but certainly not absurd. 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 Sep 26 22:41:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8QCePe01311 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 22:40:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8QCeKt01307 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 22:40:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot28.domain6.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id sa902790 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 22:39:53 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-222-211.tmns.net.au ([203.54.222.211]) by mail6.bigpond.com (Claudes-Aquatic-MailRouter V2.9b 11/3723805); 26 Sep 2000 22:39:52 Message-ID: <001f01c0275a$cba06400$d3de36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Mind sports Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 11:40:47 +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 WARNING: Getting sidetracked a little .... Herman de Wael wrote: >Peter Gill wrote: >> PS: Sleepless in Sydney the Olympic city - I even went to the >> first ever Mind Sport Demonstration Match at the Olympics >> on Sunday - a chess match between two of the world's top >> six players - details available on request to those who didn't >> realise that Chess already has been conducted at the Olympics, >> with all the top FIDE (World Chess) people and the IOC's >> Marc Hodler in attendance. >> >Hodler ? Our Marc Hodler ? > >has he made up his mind yet about the summer or winter >olympics for the mind sports ? > >I believe it was Hodler who was backing the winter ones >(being Swiss, bridger and skier, he would be) Yes you are correct. Marc made his speech on Sunday after the FIDE President's speech. The latter said (via his interpreter) that FIDE (chess) fully supports the move towards chess becoming a member of the Olympic family, and that the Ancient Greeks used to say that sport is a combination of strength and intellect .... Marc's speech was that he was there in a dual capacity - as the representative of the President of the IOC (Samaranch) and representing the WBF President (Damiani, by telephone). He talked about the art of small steps towards a goal and about the significance of sports of the intellect in playing a part in the improvement of human beings. Later Marc said that the aim at present is to have bridge fully taking part at the Winter Olympics in Torino (Turin) in 2006. It is possible by then that the Winter Olympics will have expanded in a similar way to the expansion which has happened in recent years at the Summer Olympics, as there are many sports that can be held in either winter or summer. As the current capacity of the Summer Olympics is stretched, expansion logically should be, and can be expected to occur at, the Winter Olympics. The desire of the Salt Lake City organisers to keep their Winter Olympics small (just the 15 existing Sports) and uncomplicated means that expansion may have to wait. However Marc is very hopeful that some bridge event can be arranged in 2002. If you want more details, please email me privately. Note that those are not his exact words, but rather my reporting of what Marc said. Peter Gill, Sydney the Olympic City, where I have been to seen five Olympic (and near-Olympic) Sports live this month - Trampolining, Beach Volleyball, (Chess), Football and Table Tennis. The relevance to BLML is that subjects such as Doping Regulations may be a little closer than some people think. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 26 22:53:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8QCrC901329 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 22:53:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8QCr5t01325 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 22:53:06 +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 e8QCsBm40822 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 08:54:12 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000926080139.00ab3760@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, 26 Sep 2000 08:54:34 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] ACBL Alerts In-Reply-To: <001901c02710$edc45180$23c3e080@isi.com> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000925103001.00ab8a20@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:52 PM 9/25/00, Richard wrote: >By definition, any alert structure requires some system to >differentiate between bids that require an alert and bids that do >not. Currently, the ACBL has chosen to generate a farily aribitary >list of treatments and suggest that some of these require alerts, >some require announcements, and others require delayed alerts. I am >merely suggesting that it would be easier to remember and more >logical if their was a logical structure to such a system. If anyone >else can suggest a simplier mechanism that is anywhere near as >effective for information exchange, I would love to see it. The idea that "any alert structure requires some system..." is not only wrong, but is typical of the thinking that has produced the ACBL's notoriously complex and unpopular alert structure. Consider the British rule: all artificial bids must be alerted. That is simple, straightforward, trivial for even novices to understand, and neither has nor needs any reference to any "baseline" system. When the ACBL first introduced alerts, their criterion was that any call whose meaning was uncommon, unusual or unexpected required an alert. That, too, was simple and straightforward, and did not require any baseline system. Unfortunately, however, it was not so easy for novices to apply, as they lacked the knowledge of which methods were or were not uncommon, unusual or unexpected. So the ACBL went ahead and classified methods, publishing charts and guidelines to let players know what was considered "UUU", and was therefore alertable, and what was not. Inevitably, the charts became the rules. Now the rules were not so simple and straightforward, but they were easy to understand, and still had no need to introduce the additional complexity of a baseline system players had to know. Then some influential people came up with the foolish and destructive notion that, somehow, the lack of an alert should unambiguously define the meaning of the unalerted call, that it should never be necessary to inquire about an unalerted call because the lack of an alert should tell you all you need to know. That's where the idea of a baseline system came from, and that's also when the alert procedure started to take on the stench of unpopularity which it continues to exude. Today we have an alert system which is neither simple and straightforward nor easy to understand. Fortunately, the idea of a baseline system has never been officially incorporated into the ACBL alert procedures, which would have made matters even worse. If we are to simplify the alert system and bring it back to the point where most players will no longer find it objectionable, we must get rid of this notion that an unalerted bid can have only one possible meaning. If we reject that notion, the Rosemary's baby of an official "standard" baseline system will be happily lost with the bathwater. >Most of the novices that I have encountered and taught don't have >many preconceptions about bidding. They certainly don't quit in >disgust because they are being taught Precision rather than Acol. As >long as the teacher is properly prepared to clearly articulate a >logical basis for a bidding style, novice students seem quite happy >to ape their style. When I started playing competitive bridge in the early 1960s, I encountered not only the Goren I knew, but a number of fascinating "modern" new systems (e.g. K-S, Schenken). Once exposed to these systems, I learned them, which led to my studying and thinking about bidding theory and system construction. Long before I became a Life Master, I had invented my own bidding system (a big club with five-card majors and forcing NTs, very Precision-like, about five years before Precision arrived) and was playing it regularly at local clubs and in low-level events at tournaments. It was these exercises that inculcated my lifetime love of bridge. If, when I first started, I had been required to learn and play, say, SAYC, and had never encountered any other systems, none of this would have happened, and I'd be sitting here today posting to a chess list, or whatever. I am not alone, and, if you'll pardon the arrogance, I believe that it is precisely those young people who are like I was way back then whom we wish to attract to competitive bridge. It's not that SAYC, or some other mandated system, will actively drive them away, but rather that the concomitant lack of diversity in the methods and systems they encounter, with what that implies about both the learning and the playing experience, will deprive them of one of the best reasons for not leaving. >Classic bridge was flawed from its very inception. There is an old >saying that a camel is a horse design by a committee. Classic bridge >suffered from this flaw in spades. The proposed convention charts and >structure was far too complex for players wanting a simplified game. >All the promotion in the world won't matter if you have a poor >solution for a problem. > >Furthermore, there is a great deal of difference between vigorously >promoting and competantly promoting. >The ACBL did a lot of work trying to create a groundswell and hype. >They were remarkably short on details regarding just how this new >version of bridge was going to simplify the game for end users. At its inception, Classic Bridge would have been a game in which players were free to use any natural methods they chose, but would have been severely restricted in their use of conventions. IMHO, that could have been quite successful. But the tunnel vision of the ACBL turned the original concept into nothing more than warmed-over SAYC. In the final analysis, it flopped not because the committee charged with designing a horse came up with a camel (although they did), but because they thought that a horse was needed; not because the system they designed with was too complex, but because they thought that to implement Classic Bridge they needed to come up with a system in the first place. This was doomed because, when it comes to bridge systems, one man's horse is inevitably another man's camel. 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 Sep 26 23:06:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8QD6YV01346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 23:06:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tonnant.cnchost.com (tonnant.concentric.net [207.155.248.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8QD6St01342 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 23:06:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from [216.112.239.190] (w190.z216112239.nyc-ny.dsl.cnc.net [216.112.239.190]) by tonnant.cnchost.com id JAA25494; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 09:06:08 -0400 (EDT) [ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.10] Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 09:06:15 -0400 To: Mark Abraham From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Squeeze Appeal Cc: M Smith , Bridge Laws Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 6:06 PM +1100 9/26/00, Mark Abraham wrote: >Adam Wildavsky wrote: > > East had ample reason to take time, but not to take it when he did. > > He should have taken all of his time either before the playing to the > > first trick or before leading to the second trick. I doubt very much > > whether he realized that declarer might draw an incorrect inference > > from his tempo, but whether he knew or not is irrelevant, since he > > could have known. > >The law you quote includes the condition that an opponent "who has no >demonstrable bridge reason for the action" who makes an action and who >could have known about the consequences will incur a score adjustment. >Exactly what constitutes a "bridge reason" is a matter for an AC to decide. He had a demonstrable bridge reason to hesitate. If he had a bridge reason to split his hesitation, so that it appeared he had different problems at tricks one and two, let him demonstrate it to the AC! As I wrote earlier, finding a violation here does not imply that I would adjust, only that the case can continue past this first hurdle. Adam Wildavsky -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 27 00:48:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8QElDn01396 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 00:47:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8QEl8t01392 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 00:47:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ea583704 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 00:47:01 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-002-p-212-151.tmns.net.au ([203.54.212.151]) by mail4.bigpond.com (Claudes-Rustic-MailRouter V2.9b 7/1543788); 27 Sep 2000 00:46:58 Message-ID: <003501c0276c$83227a80$97d436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 13:47:36 +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 David Stevenson wrote: > ... [snip] ... Kit Woolsey. He thought I should have stressed that >some auctions are known to be tempo-sensitive and it is important >to try to randomise the tempo with those auctions particularly. Before this practice, now that it is recommended at WBF level, spreads across the world as have alerts, stop cards, system regulations and bidding boxes, has much consideation been given to the other side of the argument? Two players described to me their horror of (IIRC) Brad Moss's ground-breaking screen huddle in Lille. It seems that Brad's approach is now not merely an acceptable alternative, but the recommended approach. The WBF seems to have copied the ACBL approach - I just had to write that clause to send goosebumps down a few readers' spines. With screens it is now desirable to both "randomise the tempo" (above) and to "maintain steady tempo" (Law 73D1) - hardly compatible aims. I know at least one top player whom I have never seen take more than about five seconds for any bid or play. He does this because he believes that that is the ideal which the Laws want us to aim to achieve. Does he have to change his ways to fit into the new guidelines, when he next plays at WBF level in Montreal in 2002? One thing I do like about the new approach. Unlike complex Alert Regulations, it will not have any adverse effect on beginners, as it applies only with screens. Peter Gill 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 Sep 27 00:54:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8QEs2Z01408 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 00:54:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8QErtt01404 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 00:53:56 +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 HAA01674; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 07:53:51 -0700 Message-Id: <200009261453.HAA01674@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 26 Sep 2000 02:23:29 PDT." Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 07:53:50 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: > >The point is that it's easy to construct a deal in which declarer gets > >punished for making a legitimate claim. > > > > K 5 4 3 > > K Q 2 > > A 7 5 > > K J 3 > > > > A 9 7 6 2 > > J 5 4 > > K Q 9 > > Q 5 > > > >South plays 4S. He wins the opening diamond lead and plays the high > >trumps. West has Qx, East has Jx, but East fails to follow suit on > >the second round. South now lays down his hand, conceding the jack of > >trumps and the two missing aces. The revoke now comes to light. > > > >If South had played the hand out, East would have necessarily won a > >trick with his jack at some point; the revoke penalty would therefore > >have been two tricks. However, according to Michael's theory, once > >South claimed, East could not have "won" any more tricks since the > >jack of spades was awarded by "rule". Thus the revoke penalty is only > >one trick, and South loses 30 points for no good reason. > > > Try Law 64C Doesn't work. Law 64C lets you adjust the score if the revoke penalty is insufficient to compensate for damage; but adjustment means (to oversimplify) that you award the score that most likely would have happened had the infraction (the revoke) had not occurred. Which, in this case, is +450. However, if South had played it out, he would have gotten +480. You're still punishing South by 30 points for having the bad taste to claim. -- 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 Sep 27 00:58:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8QEwJI01421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 00:58:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8QEwDt01417 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 00:58:13 +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 HAA01771; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 07:58:08 -0700 Message-Id: <200009261458.HAA01771@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, john@probst.demon.co.uk CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 26 Sep 2000 10:14:28 PDT." <200009260914.KAA17716@tempest.npl.co.uk> Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 07:58:08 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: > > > > > >The point is that it's easy to construct a deal in which declarer gets > > >punished for making a legitimate claim. > > > > > > K 5 4 3 > > > K Q 2 > > > A 7 5 > > > K J 3 > > > > > > A 9 7 6 2 > > > J 5 4 > > > K Q 9 > > > Q 5 > > > > > >South plays 4S. He wins the opening diamond lead and plays the high > > >trumps. West has Qx, East has Jx, but East fails to follow suit on > > >the second round. South now lays down his hand, conceding the jack of > > >trumps and the two missing aces. The revoke now comes to light. > > > > > Try Law 64C > > > > -- > > John (MadDog) Probst > > L64C only applies to established revokes "When, after any established revoke, ..." Aaaargh, in my example, I missed the fact that the revoke hasn't been established. OK, so let South dither around for a couple tricks before claiming. *Now* South loses out by claiming (according to some people's interpretation). > We need the WBFLC interpretation which says (something to the effect) > to resolve doubt in favour of claimer if there has been a revoke by opponents. The WBFLC minutes from Bermuda say: # The committee gave its attention to Law 63A3 and noted that if a # defender revokes and Declarer then claims, whereupon a defender # disputes the claim so that there is no acquiescence, the revoke has # not been established. The Director must allow correction of the revoke # and then determine the claim as equitably as possible, adjudicating # any margin of doubt against the revoker. But this only applies to a non-established revoke. Since I was trying to point out the problems that could happen with an established revoke, the WBFLC discussion doesn't help me here. -- 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 Sep 27 01:47:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8QFl4e01465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 01:47:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8QFkut01461 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 01:46:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from pecs09a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.121.237] helo=pacific) by cobalt5-ps.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13dYcF-00037p-00; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 14:48:19 +0100 Message-ID: <000401c027d0$8a8dbf00$ed7993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Peter Gill" , "Bridge Laws" References: <003501c0276c$83227a80$97d436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 16:04:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Gill To: Bridge Laws Sent: 26 September 2000 04:47 Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht > ------------------- \x/ ----------------- > Two players described to me their horror of (IIRC) Brad Moss's > ground-breaking screen huddle in Lille. It seems that Brad's > approach is now not merely an acceptable alternative, but the > recommended approach. The WBF seems to have copied > the ACBL approach - I just had to write that clause to send > goosebumps down a few readers' spines. > +=+ It only works if the tempo is irregular throughout. A sudden obvious break in tempo that is otherwise regular is no good at all. +=+ > > With screens it is now desirable to both "randomise the tempo" > (above) and to "maintain steady tempo" (Law 73D1 > +=+ Regulations for screens override the Laws in a number of respects, as Law 80E allows.. This is one of them. With the regulation [CoP] in place irregular tray movement should be the order of the day. We have a way to go yet in educating players with other habits into this procedure, but it is called for in the regulation. ~ 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 Sep 27 02:25:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8QGO7A01497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 02:24:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8QGO0t01493 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 02:24:01 +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 JAA03652; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 09:23:56 -0700 Message-Id: <200009261623.JAA03652@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 25 Sep 2000 21:10:15 PDT." <3.0.1.32.20000925211015.01335128@pop.mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 09:23:55 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Michael Dennis wrote: > At 05:18 PM 9/25/2000 PDT, Adam wrote: > >> 1. Does the concession stand? Yes, because South could not have won either > >> of the last two tricks, regardless of which way he played. Therefore, the > >> last two tricks are credited to the defense. > >> > >> 2. Note that East did not win either of the last two tricks, nor did West. > >> Play ceased at the concession, and any discussion about who won which of > >> those tricks with which card is pointless. Never happened. > > > >I disagree with this interpretation, because it is bizarre. How can a > >side get credit for having won a trick that neither member of the side > >won? > > Easy. In fact, South will, under my interpretation, get credit for at least > one trick his side never won. And under various score adjustments, players > are frequently credited with tricks they never actually won, and even with > scores for contracts they never actually played. OK, some clarification is needed. Sometimes, tricks are awarded that aren't actually played, in at least two cases: (1) A claim or concession occurs. (2) A score adjustment is necessary, and the director determines how the play likely would have gone. However, in both of these cases, we are, explicitly or implicitly, imagining that the hand was actually played, and we determine the score based on the result of the play that takes place in our imagination. Of course, in both cases, there will be many, many possible sequences of play. But in (1), the assumption is that all such sequences will lead to the same score, barring a prior revoke [else it's a faulty claim, generally speaking]; and in (2), we pick the line(s) with at least a certain probability of happening, that result in the most favorable score for the non-offenders. Anyway, the point is that a score in a claim/concession case or a 12C2 adjustment case is *not* awarded simply "by rule", to use your wording from a previous post; to say that it's awarded "by rule" ignores the larger picture. The score is a score that would actually have happened, in some hypothetical line of play that would have taken place had (in case 1) the players played it out instead of claiming or conceding or (in case 2) an infraction that led to a 12C2 adjustment had not occurred. So in our hypothetical line of play, of course each trick *is* won by a specific player. Before 1987, it didn't matter which player won what trick in a hypothetical line. The 1987 change to L64A2 complicates things. I seriously doubt that the Lawmakers noticed this when they changed this Law; supposing they *had* noticed, there are two approaches they could have taken. (a) They could have stuck with a definition of "winning" a trick that would mean that no player wins a trick that isn't actually played at the table. (b) They could have realized that, if a score is to be awarded based on one or more imaginary lines of play, then it's important to know who would have won that trick in those imaginary lines of play; and they would have clarified the Laws to take that into account. I have to believe they would have chosen (b). Choosing (a) wouldn't make sense. In fact, I think the definition of "winning" a trick has to include winning a trick in a hypothetical line of play, otherwise we have some problems as I describe in the next couple paragraphs. > In fact, neither player will win a trick. How can we tell when a player has > "won" a trick? The Laws are clear. Under L44 E and F, a trick is one by the > player contributing the highest trump, if applicable, or the highest card > in the suit led otherwise. That's the only legal standard for asserting > that a player has won a trick. And East's actions do not meet that simple > test. Hmmm . . . I'm playing in 7S. They lead. I win the first five tricks, then claim the rest. The opponents agree to the claim. I score it up as +2210. But then the opponents say "No, Law 72A2 says you are not allowed to accept the score for a trick your side didn't win; and according to the definition of 'win', you didn't win any tricks past the first five. So how can you accept a score for winning the other eight?" So L69A says the board is scored as though the tricks claimed had been won, and then L72A2 says I can't accept that score. That's what the Laws plainly say, no? I'm declarer in another contract, and at trick eight I lay down my hand and say "I'm claiming the last six tricks." The opponents say, "According to Law 68A, your claim is defined as a statement that you're going to win the last six tricks. Is that correct?" I say "Yes." They say "Then you're lying, because you can't 'win' a trick that isn't actually played, according to Laws 44E and F." So basically, the Laws are saying that all claims are inherently incorrect. Isn't that what the Laws plainly say? I think the only conclusion we can draw is that sometimes "win" [or its various verb forms] pertains to a trick actually won by playing that trick, but some other times "win" can refer to a trick won in a hypothetical line of play that we imagine for the purposes of a claim/concession or an adjustment. So that leaves the meaning of "won" in L64A2 in a bit of doubt. Although you say that the first meaning of "won" is the plain meaning, it's not all that obvious; the second meaning, in which "won" includes lines of play that only happened in our imaginations, is a good possibility. And to me, it's clearly the meaning that makes more sense, and the meaning that the Lawmakers intended. > >. . . Also, if you interpret it this way, it is easy to construct a > >situation where, if declarer plays it out, the defender who revoked is > >sure to win a trick and therefore suffers a 2-trick penalty; but if > >declarer claims, the defender who would win the trick won't actually > >win the trick, by your interpretation, and thus there's only a 1-trick > >penalty. Do you really think the authors wished to punish people for > >making legitimate claims? > > I don't know what to make of the authors' intentions, and find myself drawn > to contemplate these only when the Laws themselves are unclear. Such is not > the case in this instance. But to answer your rhetorical question, no, I > doubt that the authors wished to punish people for making legitimate > claims. Nor do I. But I reject your characterization of this as a > punishment. OK, so call it a "reward" if you prefer. It doesn't matter what you call it. You're giving South a lower score for doing nothing wrong, and for making a legitimate claim of the sort we really want to encourage. The fact is, if your interpretation is correct, then a declarer should *never* claim if there is *any* possibility that a defender might have revoked previously. That would eliminate perhaps 60-80% of all claims (just a guess). In any case, I think the WBFLC needs to address this situation. (If they already have, could someone point me to their decision?) -- 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 Sep 27 04:25:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8QIODA01579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 04:24:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8QIO6t01575 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 04:24:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4ri.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.114]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA17338; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 14:24:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00f901c027e7$77e68aa0$7213f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Irv Kostal" , "Eric Landau" Cc: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: [BLML] What does the fast pass over skip bid demonstrablysuggests? Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 14:27:44 -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: Irv Kostal >As an ACBL player, I adopted the practice of simply showing LHO the stop card >and returning it to the box. The "reminder" simply doesn't work very well. >Most people seem to think they are supposed to wait until the stop card is >removed, and I've heard a complaint that "He can make me sit there for 30 or 40 >seconds!" > >I think I prefer the old days, where you were simply supposed to wait 10 >seconds after any pre-empt. The stop card has introduced a further element >into the equation. I know it's simple, and easy to understand, but people just >don't. Do we blame the ACBL for failing to educate the players properly? Or >the directors? I don't know. > >Irv Educate the players to what? Use of the stop card (or skip bid warning if BB's not in use) in the ACBL is still optional...you may always use it or never use it...consistency, not use, is what the zonal regulations require. I, as do many players, follow the regulation by never using the stop card. This at least has the merit of not just using it when you want to wake up partner, or the common failure to use the card on such auctions as 1n-3n, (a required absurdity akin to the alert of Stayman in the UK in my view) or 1H-3H. Like you, I prefer to just wait about 10 seconds after the skip bid. 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 Sep 27 05:44:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8QJhlu01619 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 05:43:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8QJhft01615 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 05:43:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.24]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 12:43:52 -0700 Message-ID: <01ed01c027f1$e67b0f40$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000925083911.00ab8e30@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20000925131808.00a96c50@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Merry-go-round Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 12:38:18 -0700 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 Eric Landau wrote: > > My opponents are entitled to understand the meaning of the parameters of my > bidding style, which I fully reveal, but not the value which I assign to > those parameters when judging what call to make; that would be, in many > cases, tantamount to showing them my hand. They are entitled to know, for > example, that I will tighten up my preempts against players who I believe > defend particularly well, but not whether I consider them to be such players. (The following is more authoritative-sounding than my non-position may warrant. It is just my opinion of what is currently required by the ACBL. For now I am not addressing the issue of whether initial actions can be varied according to opposing countermeasures for them.) Let's be specific. The cc has a place for indication of the quality of preempts, "Sound," "Light," or "Very Light." Let's say the last describes your methods. It is permitted to vary your preempts according to style and judgment within the bounds of "Very Light," but if you cross that boundary frequently enough that your partner may account for it, then you must also check "Light." Now opponents will know that you may vary preempts from light to very light. They are entitled to that knowledge. They may ask what the conditions are for variances, and the answer may be something like "Merely according to our individual judgment, although we tend to tighten up when vulnerable." As in this response, variations based on vulnerability or seat position must be disclosed, but not those based on style or judgment. Where a HCP range is required on the CC, as for notrump openings, you have to play that range. If you want to vary it frequently (without crossing a HCP boundary, of course) for reasons of style and judgment, fine, but make a note to that effect: "Full range not always used." If you don't want to do that, Alert the bid and explain that it may be based on a HCP subrange (undefined) within the range shown, for reasons of judgment or style. In short, you have to play what is on the cc, or disclose permissible deviations from it. If you agree with this, Eric, we can proceed. I'd like to add that the instructions (15 pages, viewable at www.acbl.org/convcard) for filling out the cc, read by very few, is one of the best documents I have seen from the ACBL. It clarifies some disclosure issues very well. Copies ordered from the ACBL are $1 each (!), but the first one is free. Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, 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 Wed Sep 27 06:05:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8QK5IV01641 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 06:05:18 +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 e8QK5Bt01637 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 06:05:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from elnet.msk.ru (h139.50.elnet.msk.ru [195.58.50.139]) by gateway.telekom.ru (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8QK4mj04853; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 00:04:48 +0400 (MSD) Message-ID: <39D1003C.37A00B85@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 23:59:57 +0400 From: Vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Craig Senior CC: Irv Kostal , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] extraneous discussion References: <00f901c027e7$77e68aa0$7213f7a5@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Pairs, club game, bidding boxes are used, second board of the round. Cards are removed from the boards, players are sorting their hand. Opponents are discussing previous board - we asked them to stop this discussion. Partner opened 1 N/T, opponents are asked to stop the discussion. They continue - and RHO said something about Hearts. I Doubled... Constarnation... TD!!! The TD explained that when bidding-boxes are used I have no rights to Double orally made bid (even if it was made). Haven't I?:) May I dare for comments? Thx in advance Vitold -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 27 07:46:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8QLjdE01688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 07:45:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8QLjYt01684 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 07:45:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.24]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 14:45:47 -0700 Message-ID: <020801c02802$eee059e0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <003501c0276c$83227a80$97d436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 14:36:16 -0700 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: > > ... [snip] ... Kit Woolsey. He thought I should have stressed that > >some auctions are known to be tempo-sensitive and it is important > >to try to randomise the tempo with those auctions particularly. > Maintaining a slower but steady tempo in such "known" situations would be better, wouldn't it? Randomizing tempo is impossible, because there are times when a pair *must* take more than whatever minimum time is included in the random tempos. That makes slower tempo more likely to reflect a problem, and faster tempo less likely, destroying randomness. Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, 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 Wed Sep 27 07:50:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8QLoeD01700 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 07:50:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8QLoVt01696 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 07:50:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ives67.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.112.199]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA14594 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 17:50:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000926174747.0133b9a8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 17:47:47 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke In-Reply-To: <200009261623.JAA03652@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 09:23 AM 9/26/2000 PDT, Adam wrote: >> >> I don't know what to make of the authors' intentions, and find myself drawn >> to contemplate these only when the Laws themselves are unclear. Such is not >> the case in this instance. But to answer your rhetorical question, no, I >> doubt that the authors wished to punish people for making legitimate >> claims. Nor do I. But I reject your characterization of this as a >> punishment. > >OK, so call it a "reward" if you prefer. It doesn't matter what you >call it. You're giving South a lower score for doing nothing wrong, >and for making a legitimate claim of the sort we really want to >encourage. The fact is, if your interpretation is correct, then a >declarer should *never* claim if there is *any* possibility that a >defender might have revoked previously. That would eliminate perhaps >60-80% of all claims (just a guess). Consider two scenarios, A and B. In A, South plays a club and West wins the last two tricks, while in scenario B, South plays a heart, and East wins one of the last two tricks. I hope it is clear to all that the correct way to handle the respective revoke assessments is that in A South is awarded only one trick, while in B South receives a two-trick adjustment. Consider the argument proferred by the luckless South who chooses to play a club: "I really should receive two tricks in this situation. From a bridge standpoint, playing a club or a heart to trick 12 are entirely equivalent, and it is totally unfair that in one case I get one trick and in the other I get two. Did the authors of the Laws really intend to punish me this way? Obviously not, so we should correct their apparent oversight and give me the benefit of the doubt. A one-trick adjustment is simply bizarre and counter to the essence of the game." To which I would answer: "The revoke Laws are clear as they apply to your case. East did not 'win any tricks with a card he could have played to the revoke trick', and so you are only entitled to the single-trick bonus. The authors of the Laws certainly had no intention of punishing you: rather they established a formal procedure for assessing a revoke penalty. We consider the facts of your case in light of that procedure and rule accordingly, without regard for hypothetical situations. "It is true that this procedure is somewhat arbitrary, in that players will occasionally be awarded bonus tricks unrelated to their skill or to any actual harm suffered due to the revoke. But the quality of the procedure that makes it arbitrary is also a virtue, because it is relatively simple and easy to apply to a situation that arises with some frequency. And remember that 'arbitrary' is not the same as 'unfair'. What _would_ be manifestly unfair would be for me to assume that the authors of the Laws were simply incompetent, and to elevate my own ideas about the 'essence of the game' above the requirements of the Laws." Is it perfectly clear that South's argument is bogus? He is correct that he did nothing wrong, and yet has received a lesser outcome than if he had taken an apparently equivalent course of action. But that does not mean he has been punished, nor that the procedures under which these differing outcomes are assessed are badly flawed. And we certainly should not imagine that the asymmetry of these outcomes justifies our suspension of the written Laws. Now let us add Scenario C to the mix, C for Concession. And again we must ask the question: has East won a trick with a card he could have played to the revoke trick? Adam asks us to fuzz up the language here, claiming that "win" is used in a variety of contexts elsewhere in the Laws (including some clearly hypothetical), and that an over-literal interpretation would result in a number of absurd contradictions. Fine, but the language here is rather specific and concrete in referring to winning a trick with a with a specific card. It neither requires nor invites speculation about hypothetical alternative results, which are implicit in the claim/concession examples Adam gives. I believe that the language of L64A is specific and clear in this case. Adam conceded as much in an earlier post, but finds the result to be so "bizarre" that we are justified in ignoring that language to honor what he presumes about the intentions of the lawmakers. His argument is not so different from that given by the South player above: Because South is blameless in choosing among apparently equivalent options, he should be credited with having chosen the most favorable, regardless of what actually happened. Sorry, won't wash. Nor will the doomsday scenario of what will happen if we do rule in accord with the Laws. People will still concede, and the tiny minority who consider the "added cost" imposed on a conceder by this interpretation (in general, it is irrelevant to a claim) too overwhelming will not add a significant burden to the game. 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 Wed Sep 27 08:31:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8QMVLE01732 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 08:31:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ms1.freezone.co.uk (IDENT:root@ms1.purplenet.co.uk [212.1.130.118]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8QMVEt01728 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 08:31:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (ppp-1-64.cvx6.telinco.net [212.1.156.64]) by ms1.freezone.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA09978 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 23:43:25 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01c02808$fff3efc0$409c01d4@default> From: "magda thain" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <003501c0276c$83227a80$97d436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <000401c027d0$8a8dbf00$ed7993c3@pacific> Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 23:27:04 +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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I must have misunderstood. I believed the Lille player was trying to even out the tempo not make it uneven? Would you say the two are different or the same? mt To: Peter Gill ; Bridge Laws Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 4:04 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht > > Grattan Endicott ================================= > ' The greatest fool may ask more than > the wisest man can ever answer.' ( 'Lacon'). > <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Peter Gill > To: Bridge Laws > Sent: 26 September 2000 04:47 > Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht > > > > > ------------------- \x/ ----------------- > > Two players described to me their horror of (IIRC) Brad Moss's > > ground-breaking screen huddle in Lille. It seems that Brad's > > approach is now not merely an acceptable alternative, but the > > recommended approach. The WBF seems to have copied > > the ACBL approach - I just had to write that clause to send > > goosebumps down a few readers' spines. > > > +=+ It only works if the tempo is irregular throughout. > A sudden obvious break in tempo that is otherwise > regular is no good at all. +=+ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 27 08:42:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8QMgYO01750 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 08:42:34 +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 e8QMgTt01746 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 08:42:29 +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 IAA23018 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 08:37:50 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:38:28 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Untimely question To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:39:39 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 27/09/2000 09:35:27 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Anne wrote: "A situation presented this last week-end. E/W were late arriving, so no questions about system had been asked.CCs were on the table, under the bidding boxes:-) On the first board North passed, East opened 2D (this was alerted) and South passed. Immediately after passing, before West had called South reached for opps CC and asked what the 2D had been. What UI do you think North had if any? If you think North had some UI, what do you think is demonstrably suggested by this information." Values over an alerted 2D can be scientifically shown this way: Not enquire, then Pass = very weak Pass, then enquire = weak Enquire, then Pass = mediocre Enquire, then bid = good Bid, then enquire = better Not enquire, then bid = excellent Distribution can also be easily shown: Enquire, then Double = diamond suit Not enquire, then Double = other three suits Best wishes R -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 27 08:48:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8QMlmP01762 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 08:47:48 +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 e8QMlft01758 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 08:47:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.221] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13e3Vg-00088Q-00; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 23:47:38 +0100 Message-ID: <001501c0280b$ed85e3e0$dd5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 22:02:32 +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: ------------- \x/ ------------- > This method is fine but not best. > > If I award 60% of 430 and 40% of 400 then I must add .6 to the 430 > frequency and .4 to the 400 frequency and then matchpoint with a > frequency table containing these fractions. eg > > 9 results (English scoring; 2 for a win) > > How David does it: > Apply Neuberg to 8 results > score frq mps > 460 1 15.875 > 430 3 11.375 The weighted score gets 60% 11.375 6.825 > 420 3 4.625 plus 40% 0.125 0.05 > 400 1 0.125 Award 6.875 > > How it should be done: > score frq mps > 460 1 16 > 430 3.6 11.4 The weighted score gets 60% 11.4 6.84 > 420 3 4.8 plus 40% 0.4 0.16 > 400 1.4 0.4 Award 7.00 > +=+ Could you carry the example through and show me how it works out in imps in a team match, please? ~ 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 Sep 27 09:18:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8QNI7W01787 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:18:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8QNI0t01783 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:18:01 +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 13e3z1-0001RK-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 00:17:56 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 12:45:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Squeeze Appeal References: <4.3.2.7.0.20000926043239.00a99f00@popmail.tcp.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20000926043239.00a99f00@popmail.tcp.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk M Smith wrote: >I apologize for the length of this post but the hand is quite complex. [s] >The ruling.... > >The Director, having consulted with a prominent member of this list, ruled >that South was damaged. The ruling is that he would have made the contract >70% of the time and failed 30%. With N-S at the other table in the match >making +1370 in 6D, this reduced E-W's gain on the deal from 16 IMPs to 3 IMPs. Just to be accurate the ruling was that N/S was assigned a score of 70% of 6NT=, NS +1430 30% of 6NT-1, NS -100 Being an English ruling, this did not mean that declarer would have made the contract 70% of the time, more like 60%. There is a benefit- of-doubt bias included in L12C3 rulings. >The arguments.... [s] >Some might say that East should play to Trick 1 and then think or state >that he is thinking about the hand as a whole. Should he? Is this not >akin to declarer studying dummy for some time when he has a holding such as >A-x-x facing a singleton in the led suit. He is not obliged to tell the >defenders that he is not thinking about this trick (or, at least, no one >ever does). I am shocked at this statement from Marc, which is not true. Ethical players often tell their opponents they are not thinking about this trick. It is quite normal, especially amongst good English players. ---------- It is too late to do anything about it now, of course, but I wonder whether it is a good idea to put live hands on the Internet? Appeals Committees are meant to be composed of people who do not have advance knowledge of the case and this posting seems to reduce such people considerably. You will remember, Marc, that you were one of the people that criticised the composition of ACs at Brighton. In one case the problem came about because both potential Chairmen excused themselves because of prior knowledge and then I had no Chairman-standard member available. Generally, I would think it more sensible to discuss cases after they are dead. -- 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 Sep 27 09:24:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8QNO1E01800 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:24:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8QNNut01796 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:23:56 +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 JAA27859 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:19:13 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 10:19:52 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Merry-go-round To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 10:21:03 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 27/09/2000 10:16:50 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I wrote: "The local SO could attempt to prohibit changing the strength of your 1NT opening mid-session by regulation. However, both types of NT opening are not conventional, so I am not sure what Law would make such a regulation legal. (Unless the event is a high-class one which requires advance notification of all systems.)" Marv replied: "Law 40E1 allows an SO to prescribe a convention card and establish regulations for its use. I presume this means that the ACBL regulation forbidding a pair to change system midstream without the TD's okay is legal." This ACBL interpretation of L40E1 implys that that law overrides L40D, permitting SOs to regulate non-conventional 1NT openings. Therefore, the ACBL could use L40E1 to stamp out the iniquitous weak NT by issuing pre-printed convention cards containing the statement "1NT = 15-17". Best wishes R -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 27 09:40:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8QNe4701814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:40:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from falhost.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 e8QNdxt01810 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:39:59 +1000 (EST) Received: by falhost.fujitsu.com.au; id KAA21085; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 10:39:50 +1100 Received: from mailhost.fujitsu.com.au(137.172.19.140) by falhost via smap (V2.1) id xma020988; Wed, 27 Sep 00 10:39:43 +1100 Received: from mailhost.fujitsu.com.au (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhost.fujitsu.com.au (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id e8QNdhf18796 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 10:39:43 +1100 Received: from sercit.fujitsu.com.au (sercit.fujitsu.com.au [137.172.40.224]) by mailhost.fujitsu.com.au (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id e8QNdfr18790 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 10:39:41 +1100 Received: from newmanhome ([137.172.3.60]) by sercit.fujitsu.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA03021 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:32:32 +1100 Message-ID: <00cb01c0281a$c9466b30$3c03ac89@newmanhome> From: "Peter Newman" To: References: <001501c0280b$ed85e3e0$dd5408c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Untimely question Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 10:35:00 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi All, In answer to the original question....I am not sure what this means... I would guess that it is either: - Not a great hand but just showing interest because you haven't seen their CC(though that is banned by EBU, right?) - Around an opening hand (prob. with some diamond length) I am not really suited to answering about whether there is UI in EBU land because of the rule that you can't ask without interest that appears to apply. Under those rules any question without action must give some UI - of at least an opening hand or I suppose of just Diamonds. Personally, I think that for an opening 2 level alerted bid in an auction there shouldn't be UI created by asking what it means. [Or I guess the equivalent of picking up the CC to find out the meaning.] I think it is important to keep up with the auction at all times and that is impossible to do if you don't know the meaning of the bidding. [eg. if it is multi start thinking about what you would bid if it goes 2H by LHO double by partner, etc. etc.] Cheers, Peter PS: If you didn't know Richard better one could be slightly worried by his reply. > Distribution can also be easily shown: > > Enquire, then Double = diamond suit > > Not enquire, then Double = other three suits and in the same vain.... I think that you can do better than this.... "What does that mean?" - then double shows general strength "Does that show diamonds?" - then double very good diamonds "Does that show diamonds?" - then pass suggests a sacrifice but with poor diamonds ;-) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 27 09:44:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8QNidc01831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:44:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f7.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.7]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8QNiXt01827 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:44:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 16:44:26 -0700 Received: from 172.142.147.10 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 23:44:25 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.142.147.10] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] ACBL Alerts Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 16:44:25 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Sep 2000 23:44:26.0145 (UTC) FILETIME=[B456C910:01C02813] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Eric Landau >To: Bridge Laws Discussion List >Subject: RE: [BLML] ACBL Alerts >Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 08:54:34 -0400 > >At 12:52 PM 9/25/00, Richard wrote: > >>By definition, any alert structure requires some system to >>differentiate between bids that require an alert and bids that do >>not. Currently, the ACBL has chosen to generate a farily aribitary >>list of treatments and suggest that some of these require alerts, >>some require announcements, and others require delayed alerts. I am >>merely suggesting that it would be easier to remember and more >>logical if their was a logical structure to such a system. If anyone >>else can suggest a simplier mechanism that is anywhere near as >>effective for information exchange, I would love to see it. > >The idea that "any alert structure requires some system..." is not only >wrong, but is typical of the thinking that has produced the ACBL's >notoriously complex and unpopular alert structure. Consider the British >rule: all artificial bids must be alerted. That is simple, >straightforward, trivial for even novices to understand, and neither has >nor needs any reference to any "baseline" system. False. The baseline system here is "all bids are natural." No alerting system currently used fails to satisfy this proposition, as much as I've been able to think about the problem: If YourTreatment(bid, bidding-sequence) intersect Baseline(bid, bidding-sequence) <> YourTreatment(bid, bidding-sequence), then bid is alertable. (whether delayed, alerted, or announced) Baseline and YourTreatment are functions which return sets, possibly empty, possibly with cardinality of one, possibly lots of meanings. There may not be an official baseline, per se, however there is nothing incorrect (yet) by assigning one and looking at the problem from that direction. I'm not certain about whether generality is lost or not. >Then some influential people came up with the foolish and destructive >notion that, somehow, the lack of an alert should unambiguously define the >meaning of the unalerted call, that it should never be necessary to inquire >about an unalerted call because the lack of an alert should tell you all >you need to know. That's where the idea of a baseline system came from, >and that's also when the alert procedure started to take on the stench of >unpopularity which it continues to exude. If they do have that idea, they missed one. A cue bid is almost never alerted except when natural, so the lack of alert for a cue bid says nothing. Could be Michael's, could be a strong takeout, could be a transfer to the next higher suit (if your partner has not bid yet), .... -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 Wed Sep 27 10:21:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8R0KoY01855 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 10:20:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.a2000.nl (duck.a2000.nl [62.108.1.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8R0Kit01851 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 10:20:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp2.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 13e4xk-0001SY-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 02:20:40 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20000927022253.00fa6528@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 02:22:53 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: [BLML] extraneous discussion In-Reply-To: <39D1003C.37A00B85@elnet.msk.ru> References: <00f901c027e7$77e68aa0$7213f7a5@oemcomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:59 PM 9/26/2000 +0400, you wrote: >Hi all:) >Pairs, club game, bidding boxes are used, second board of the round. Cards are >removed from the boards, players are sorting their hand. Opponents are >discussing previous board - we asked them to stop this discussion. Partner >opened 1 N/T, opponents are asked to stop the discussion. They continue - and >RHO said something about Hearts. I Doubled... well the fact that you couldnt stop them talking about a played hand would indicate that they had a hearing handicap (deaf perhaps), so bidding orally problably wont come over. That they managed to hear your double is probably a sign of magical cure of deafness. I -hearing the story as TD - probably would fine your opponents a full board, for being rude to the opponents and give them a formal warning. Of course your D was only used for distracting their minds from previous hardship. But i think an orally made bid, while using biddingboxes is very legal (otherwise vision impaired people wouldnt be able to extpress their biddings. Please tell what fine the TD gave your opponents regards, anton >Constarnation... TD!!! The TD explained that when bidding-boxes are used I have >no rights to Double orally made bid (even if it was made). Haven't I?:) May I >dare for comments? >Thx in advance >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/ > 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 Wed Sep 27 11:37:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8R1aMM01907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 11:36:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8R1a8t01895 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 11:36:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13e68c-0004Ck-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 01:35:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 02:34:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Squeeze Appeal References: <4.3.2.7.0.20000926043239.00a99f00@popmail.tcp.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20000926043239.00a99f00@popmail.tcp.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <4.3.2.7.0.20000926043239.00a99f00@popmail.tcp.co.uk>, M Smith writes >Sirs > >I apologize for the length of this post but the hand is quite complex. I was given the hand at the YC last night. We noted that if spades *are* 3-3 then the contract can be made even if the DK is offside when East holds the CK if declarer picks it. Hence the best line in isolation is to cash the spades before taking the D hook or playing for the drop. I may just be off-the-wall with this analysis but it would take a better player than I to explain it to me. I personally felt that there is an element of "double-shot" in taking the losing line hoping to get it back if this line fails. My initial reaction was to award 40% making, 60% failing because South can see from the carding that the CK is probably with East, regardless of the hesitation. (I had in mind about 15% of this as the PP for the long tank). After much further discussion I was inclined to come closer to the original TD decision, probably 60% making (of which I had in mind about 15% PP still). Having read analyses by others in this thread I'm now inclined to return to my original view of 40/60. I need to consider further whether I'd award no damage, but issue a 6 imp PP (double the standard - this player should know the Laws, although I'm aware he's out of touch) for the tank, based on "demonstrable bridge reason" and the arguments of Law 72B1 and 73F2 vs 73D1. These comments are made as an EBU TD and should not be taken as the view an AC may form, although AC's should now tend to vary a TD's L12C3 ruling only if they see it as seriously flawed. I don't see the ruling as seriously flawed, unless one feels there are compelling arguments related to the EW carding in the C suit, the element of "double-shot", and the element of "demonstrable bridge reason". That East should get a significant PP is without question. He had no business huddling at trick 1. A trick 2 tank is acceptable. My bias is that my son is a member of the poster's team, but I always rule against him on principle. cheers john > >Due to the vagaries of an event played over two weekends, we are in a >position of having received a ruling on this deal but the appeal has yet to >be heard. I would appreciate any insights that members of this list can >offer - critical or supportive. For example, have we missed any important >points in our favor or have we misinterpreted some inferences? > >First, the facts.... > >Declarer reaches 6NT on the following cards. > > Q 6 5 > A K > A Q J 8 4 3 > A 6 > > > A K 4 2 > Q J 7 6 3 > 10 > J 10 7 > >The uncontested auction has been 1H-2D (FG)-2H-3D-3NT-6NT > >West leads the C5 (playing fourth best and second highest from weak >holdings) and declarer quickly plays low from dummy. East goes into the >tank for a full two minutes, then wins the trick with the queen of clubs >and then returns to the tank for a further three minutes before returning >the two of clubs. > >Declarer wins the ace of clubs, cashes the top hearts, crosses to hand with >a spade, and cashes his heart winners. The defenders hearts divide 3-3 and >then West discards the 4-3 of clubs while East throws the C9 and the D2. > >These cards remain: > > Q 6 > --- > A Q J > --- > > > A 4 2 > --- > 10 > J > > >Declarer must now decide which squeeze to play for. Position A: > > Q 6 > --- > A Q J > --- >J 10 9 x >--- --- >K x x x >K 8 > A 4 2 > --- > 10 > J > >The winning play is to cash two rounds of spades, squeezing West in the >minors and relying on the diamond finesse. > >Position B: > > Q 6 > --- > A Q J > --- >J 10 9 x >--- --- >K x x x >8 K > A 4 2 > --- > 10 > J > >Now declarer must play a diamond to the queen and cash the DA to squeeze >East in the black suits. > > >At the table, declarer played spades. This failed when the E-W cards lie >as shown in Position B. > >Declarer then claimed that he had been misled by East's long hesitation at >Trick 1 since, holding both Q and K of clubs, he had nothing to think >about. Declarer therefore placed West with the CK and played accordingly. > >East stated that he was trying to work out what to do at Trick 2 - whether >he should return a club or whether a spade switch was needed to break up >the impending squeeze. > >The ruling.... > >The Director, having consulted with a prominent member of this list, ruled >that South was damaged. The ruling is that he would have made the contract >70% of the time and failed 30%. With N-S at the other table in the match >making +1370 in 6D, this reduced E-W's gain on the deal from 16 IMPs to 3 IMPs. > > >The arguments.... > >First, let me state my bias, since although I was not at the table I am a >member of one of the teams involved - the E/W pair at this table are my >teammates. > >a) Both declarer and the defenders are entitled to think about the hand as >a whole before playing to Trick 1. The fact that declarer decided that he >had nothing to think about should not prevent East from thinking for as >long as he needs. > >Some might say that East should play to Trick 1 and then think or state >that he is thinking about the hand as a whole. Should he? Is this not >akin to declarer studying dummy for some time when he has a holding such as >A-x-x facing a singleton in the led suit. He is not obliged to tell the >defenders that he is not thinking about this trick (or, at least, no one >ever does). > >b) The fact that East is thinking for so long might/should suggest to >declarer that he expects to win the first trick. It seems clear that he is >deciding what to return at Trick 2 (or how to discard when a red suit is >run), rather than whether to play the queen to Trick 1. This suggests that >he also holds the king rather than suggests that he does not. > >Furthermore, if the long pause suggests anything about East's club holding, >it is that he holds both the king and the queen rather than something like >Qxxx. With Qxxx or something similar, the play of the queen is >automatic. Remember, that West's spot was the five and East may not be >able to read the holdings if he has something like Qxxx. Can he really >afford to duck when his partner may have led from Kxxx? > >With the actual king-queen holding, East MIGHT think he needs to decide >which honor to play - ie whether he can afford to conceal the queen from >his partner in order to falsecard declarer with the king. > >c) Declarer is a seasoned international professional player and both >defenders are also very experienced. There is, thus, a reasonable >expectation that East has found the best defence after thinking for so long. > >Yet, declarer's actual line of play assumes that East misdefended at Trick >2. If the layout is as shown in Position A above, then East could have >broken up the squeeze by returning a diamond at Trick 2. On the actual >hand, of course, doing so would be a fatal defense as it would remove >declarer's losing option. > >The adopted line of play also assumes that West has led a falsecard at >Trick 1 - ie. the five of clubs from K-5-4-3 rather than a true card from >8-5-3-2. > >d) With no outside factors, the chosen line of play (to cash the spades >first) is the best percentage play. If the spades divide 3-3 then there is >potential for declarer to make the hand on a show-up if East holds both >minor-suit kings, as the fourth round of spades will force him to bare the >DK at Trick 11. > >The suggestion that East holds the king of clubs (as put forward in b) >above), however, might lead declarer to take the slightly anti-percentage >and winning line of play. Far from misleading declarer as to the position, >we feel that the break in tempo actually suggested the winning play, rather >than what appears to be the best percentage play. > >e) Perhaps declarer was influenced to adopt his actual line of play because >he could then claim to have been misled in the event that it was >wrong. This is surely like having his cake and eating it too, which is >something that we feel an AC should not allow. > > >If you are still with me, thank you for your patience. I would appreciate >any comments (positive or negative) > >Marc Smith > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 "I agree, for what phone before fax to: 451 Mile End Road that's worth." 020 8980 4947 London E3 4PA DWS, 19/09/00 john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 27 11:37:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8R1aBE01898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 11:36:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8R1a2t01886 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 11:36:02 +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 13e68a-000HKg-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 02:35:57 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 02:23:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht References: <003501c0276c$83227a80$97d436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <020801c02802$eee059e0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <020801c02802$eee059e0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >Peter Gill wrote: > >> David Stevenson wrote: >> > ... [snip] ... Kit Woolsey. He thought I should have stressed >that >> >some auctions are known to be tempo-sensitive and it is important >> >to try to randomise the tempo with those auctions particularly. >> >Maintaining a slower but steady tempo in such "known" situations would >be better, wouldn't it? > >Randomizing tempo is impossible, because there are times when a pair >*must* take more than whatever minimum time is included in the random >tempos. That makes slower tempo more likely to reflect a problem, and >faster tempo less likely, destroying randomness. But at least "more likely" is better than "always". If the tray comes back after 45 seconds, and you know this means either someone thought or someone held on to the tray, that is better surely than knowing it means someone thought. -- 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 Sep 27 11:37:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8R1aCZ01899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 11:36:12 +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-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 e8R1a2t01887 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 11:36:03 +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 13e68a-000HKh-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 02:35:57 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 02:24:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht References: <001501c0280b$ed85e3e0$dd5408c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <001501c0280b$ed85e3e0$dd5408c3@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: John (MadDog) Probst >------------- \x/ ------------- >> This method is fine but not best. >> >> If I award 60% of 430 and 40% of 400 then I must add .6 to the 430 >> frequency and .4 to the 400 frequency and then matchpoint with a >> frequency table containing these fractions. eg >> >> 9 results (English scoring; 2 for a win) >> >> How David does it: >> Apply Neuberg to 8 results >> score frq mps >> 460 1 15.875 >> 430 3 11.375 The weighted score gets 60% 11.375 6.825 >> 420 3 4.625 plus 40% 0.125 0.05 >> 400 1 0.125 Award 6.875 >> >> How it should be done: >> score frq mps >> 460 1 16 >> 430 3.6 11.4 The weighted score gets 60% 11.4 6.84 >> 420 3 4.8 plus 40% 0.4 0.16 >> 400 1.4 0.4 Award 7.00 >> >+=+ Could you carry the example through >and show me how it works out in imps in >a team match, please? It does not apply to a teams match. All John is saying is that weighted scores should be scored properly in matchpoint events. They already are in imps because it is simpler. -- 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 Sep 27 11:37:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8R1aLU01906 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 11:36:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8R1aAt01897 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 11:36:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13e68i-0004Cx-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 01:36:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 01:24:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke References: <200009261453.HAA01674@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200009261453.HAA01674@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <200009261453.HAA01674@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >John Probst wrote: > >> >The point is that it's easy to construct a deal in which declarer gets >> >punished for making a legitimate claim. >> > >> > K 5 4 3 >> > K Q 2 >> > A 7 5 >> > K J 3 >> > >> > A 9 7 6 2 >> > J 5 4 >> > K Q 9 >> > Q 5 >> > >> >South plays 4S. He wins the opening diamond lead and plays the high >> >trumps. West has Qx, East has Jx, but East fails to follow suit on >> >the second round. South now lays down his hand, conceding the jack of >> >trumps and the two missing aces. The revoke now comes to light. >> > >> >If South had played the hand out, East would have necessarily won a >> >trick with his jack at some point; the revoke penalty would therefore >> >have been two tricks. However, according to Michael's theory, once >> >South claimed, East could not have "won" any more tricks since the >> >jack of spades was awarded by "rule". Thus the revoke penalty is only >> >one trick, and South loses 30 points for no good reason. >> > >> Try Law 64C > >Doesn't work. Law 64C lets you adjust the score if the revoke penalty >is insufficient to compensate for damage; but adjustment means (to >oversimplify) that you award the score that most likely would have >happened had the infraction (the revoke) had not occurred. Which, in >this case, is +450. However, if South had played it out, he would >have gotten +480. You're still punishing South by 30 points for >having the bad taste to claim. > Assuming it's established I think I probably can award 480. If not I can follow the WBF. Let's see what others say. > -- 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/ -- John (MadDog) Probst "I agree, for what phone before fax to: 451 Mile End Road that's worth." 020 8980 4947 London E3 4PA DWS, 19/09/00 john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 27 11:42:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8R1fpe01943 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 11:41:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8R1flt01939 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 11:41:47 +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 e8R1fkK13626 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 12:41:46 +1100 (EST) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 12:41:45 +1100 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@medvesajt.anu.edu.au To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Untimely question In-Reply-To: <00cb01c0281a$c9466b30$3c03ac89@newmanhome> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > PS: If you didn't know Richard better one could be slightly worried by his > reply. > > Distribution can also be easily shown: > > > > Enquire, then Double = diamond suit > > > > Not enquire, then Double = other three suits > > and in the same vain.... > > I think that you can do better than this.... > > "What does that mean?" - then double > shows general strength > "Does that show diamonds?" - then double > very good diamonds > "Does that show diamonds?" - then pass > suggests a sacrifice but with poor diamonds I've observed some advanced variations in country congresses in Australia. Doubtless the old chestnut of asking about a 1-minor opening is well-known: "Does 1C show clubs?" - then pass shows a 1C overcall "Does 1C show clubs?" - then double shows a good 1C overcall "Does 1C show clubs?" - then 2C shows a rock with a club suit "How many clubs does 1C show?" - then pass shows a sub-minimum informative double "How many clubs does 1C show?" - then double shows a real informative double with a club suit "How many clubs does 1C show?" - then 2C is a good club suit and hand Not asking **transfers** the requirement to ask to partner, so that passing shows anything that can't bid, and doubling is a takeout double, and 2C is then a Michaels Cuebid. These agreements are even better over opponent's 1NT openings: "How strong is your 1NT?" - then pass shows a weak notrump "Is that notrump weak?" - then double shows 15-16HCP "How strong is your 1NT?" - then double shows 17-18HCP No enquiry followed by a pass therefore denies a weak notrump and no enquiry followed by a double shows a gilt-edged 19-count or better. I was even treated to the following masterful display once: My partner opened a 16-18 1NT and righty passed without asking (showing a very weak hand... less than a weak notrump) and I transferred to 3D (unlimited hand) with a 2NT bid (alerted). Now lefty wanted to know how strong partner's 1NT was, and what my 2NT bid showed... holding KJx KQx xxxx Axx at all vulnerable with a CC available describing both of the bids specifically. Partner duly accepted the transfer and righty pre-balanced in an unlimited auction with Qx JTxxxx xx KJx. Clearly an experienced campaigner to pull off such an advanced move. 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 Wed Sep 27 11:51:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8R1owV01958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 11:50:58 +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-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 e8R1opt01954 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 11:50:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13e6Mt-000OJb-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 02:50:44 +0100 Message-ID: <4mprNEEUIV05Ewow@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 02:49:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht References: <001501c0280b$ed85e3e0$dd5408c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >Grattan Endicott wrote: >>From: John (MadDog) Probst >>------------- \x/ ------------- >>> This method is fine but not best. >>> >>> If I award 60% of 430 and 40% of 400 then I must add .6 to the 430 >>> frequency and .4 to the 400 frequency and then matchpoint with a >>> frequency table containing these fractions. eg >>> >>> 9 results (English scoring; 2 for a win) >>> >>> How David does it: >>> Apply Neuberg to 8 results >>> score frq mps >>> 460 1 15.875 >>> 430 3 11.375 The weighted score gets 60% 11.375 6.825 >>> 420 3 4.625 plus 40% 0.125 0.05 >>> 400 1 0.125 Award 6.875 >>> >>> How it should be done: >>> score frq mps >>> 460 1 16 >>> 430 3.6 11.4 The weighted score gets 60% 11.4 6.84 >>> 420 3 4.8 plus 40% 0.4 0.16 >>> 400 1.4 0.4 Award 7.00 >>> >>+=+ Could you carry the example through >>and show me how it works out in imps in >>a team match, please? > > It does not apply to a teams match. All John is saying is that >weighted scores should be scored properly in matchpoint events. They >already are in imps because it is simpler. > It would apply if we were using Butler however, as the weights would influence the datum. x-imps is self evident. -- John (MadDog) Probst "I agree, for what phone before fax to: 451 Mile End Road that's worth." 020 8980 4947 London E3 4PA DWS, 19/09/00 john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 27 12:16:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8R2Fmp01984 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 12:15:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8R2Fgt01980 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 12:15:43 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 41B6B48761; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 22:15:38 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 22:15:33 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] What are the logical alternatives here? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 1:09 AM -0400 9/25/00, Adam Wildavsky should have written: >EW Vul, Matchpoints > >W N E S > P 2H 2H is weak and could be a 5 card suit >P P 3C P >3H X P P 3H asks for a heart stop and pass denies one >3S P 3N P 3N shows a partial heart stop, typically Qx or Jxx > >West holds: > >AKQJ >843 >A65 >876 > >Which are his logical alternatives? Here are the results from our all-star panel: Name P 4C 4H 4S 5C XX Tim Goodwin x x Ron Johnson x x Adam Beneschan x x x x Chris Pisarra x Roger Pewick x Richard Hills x x x Peter Newman x x x x A. L. Edwards x Michael Kopera x David Stevenson x x x x x Total 4 10 2 5 2 1 Two of the four in the Pass column thought Pass was barely a LA, but they said they could have gone either way. I don't think majority should rule here. In my experience if even one committee member considers an action a LA then it likely is a LA. Here's more of the tale. East hesitated before bidding 3NT. All parties concede that West had UI. The next question is: What does the UI demonstrably suggest? Usually the UI would suggest pulling rather than sitting with a marginal hand, but here most of those who counted Pass a LA were hoping for heart blockage. So, part two of the question, especially for those who agree that Pass is a LA: Which action(s) does UI demonstrably suggest? Or, what kind of hand would have trouble bidding 3N in tempo here? Again, I'll summarize replies to the list. If you'd rather post your answer, though, go for it! Adam Wildavsky -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 27 13:25:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8R3P7l02021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 13:25:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8R3P1t02017 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 13:25:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ives38.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.112.104]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA05678 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 23:24:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000926232450.011f6534@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 23:24:50 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] Untimely question 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 09:39 AM 9/27/2000 +1000, Richard wrote: > >Anne wrote: > >"A situation presented this last week-end. >E/W were late arriving, so no questions >about system had been asked.CCs were > on the table, under the bidding boxes:-) >On the first board North passed, East >opened 2D (this was alerted) and South >passed. >Immediately after passing, before West >had called South reached for opps CC >and asked what the 2D had been. >What UI do you think North had if any? >If you think North had some UI, what >do you think is demonstrably suggested >by this information." > > >Values over an alerted 2D can be scientifically shown this way: > >Not enquire, then Pass = very weak > >Pass, then enquire = weak > >Enquire, then Pass = mediocre > >Enquire, then bid = good > >Bid, then enquire = better > >Not enquire, then bid = excellent > > >Distribution can also be easily shown: > >Enquire, then Double = diamond suit > >Not enquire, then Double = other three suits > > It is perhaps a playable method, but hardly standard. Seriously though, I think that South's question, although obviously illegal at the point it was asked, suggests that he wishes to know the meaning of an alerted call. Neither more, nor less. If he pursues the issue by vigorously asking follow-up questions, the case gets more complex, depending on the questions he asks. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 27 13:48:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8R3lsN02040 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 13:47:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8R3llt02036 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 13:47:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ives38.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.112.104]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA06360 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 23:47:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000926234738.013421a8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 23:47:38 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] Untimely question In-Reply-To: <00cb01c0281a$c9466b30$3c03ac89@newmanhome> References: <001501c0280b$ed85e3e0$dd5408c3@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:35 AM 9/27/2000 +1000, Peter N wrote: >Hi All, > >In answer to the original question....I am not sure what this means... >I would guess that it is either: >- Not a great hand but just showing interest because you haven't seen their >CC(though that is banned by EBU, right?) >- Around an opening hand (prob. with some diamond length) > >I am not really suited to answering about whether there is UI in EBU land >because of the rule that you can't ask without interest that appears to >apply. Under those rules any question without action must give some UI - of >at least an opening hand or I suppose of just Diamonds. Interesting rule, that. To begin with, if it is indeed an EBU rule, then it is in direct and unambiguous conflict with L20F1. Now it is a well-established truism that SO's can regulate however the hell they want, without so much as a by-your-leave from the institutionally toothless WBFLC. But even allowing that the EBU has the de facto authority to make such a rule in contravention of the Laws, this is a remarkably stupid one. What happens if a player breaks this "rule"? Suppose a player asks, hears the answer, and then passes _holding less than opening values and only two small diamonds_!!???? Is this to be considered a psychic question? If such questions get asked with more than a particular frequency, is partner obliged to alert the opponents as to your "deceptive" tendencies in this regard? Suppose the opponents rely on the presumption concerning the meaning of your question to their detriment. Are they entitled to redress for your sneaky question? Not to mention, as others have frequently pointed out (none more eloquently than Eric), there are lots of good reasons to ask about an alerted call, even when the answer is not important to your immediate decision. In fact, asking questions _only_ when the answer is of immediate importance is _much_ more likely to be a source of UI than simply asking whenever you are unsure of the meaning of the opponents' bids, which is when most of us do it. And the least informative time to ask (and generally the most useful to you as well) is at your first opportunity following the alert. I really know nothing of EBU regulatory practices, and am completely unqualified to confirm Peter's description of this "rule", so I hope nobody gets too bent out of shape if it turns out I have slammed a non-existent policy. 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 Wed Sep 27 14:20:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8R4KWJ02070 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 14:20:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8R4KQt02066 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 14:20:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.24]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 21:20:35 -0700 Message-ID: <026c01c0283a$129d8060$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Merry-go-round Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 21:19:00 -0700 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 Hills wrote: > > I wrote: > > "The local SO could attempt to prohibit changing the strength of your > 1NT opening mid-session by regulation. However, both types of NT > opening are not conventional, so I am not sure what Law would make such a > regulation legal. (Unless the event is a high-class one which requires > advance notification of all systems.)" > > Marv replied: > > "Law 40E1 allows an SO to prescribe a convention card and establish > regulations for its use. I presume this means that the ACBL regulation > forbidding a pair to change system midstream without the TD's okay is > legal." > > This ACBL interpretation of L40E1 implys that that law overrides L40D, > permitting SOs to regulate non-conventional 1NT openings. Therefore, the > ACBL could use L40E1 to stamp out the iniquitous weak NT by issuing > pre-printed convention cards containing the statement "1NT = 15-17". > The Lausanne Group might agree with that. It sounds like the CoP rule that permits a TD to vary an adjusted score per L12C3, in violation of L80F. That's easily solved. How does it go? Something like this (I save things): "Law 80F applies only to regulations made under 80F. It acted instead under Law 80G which authorizes it to make arrangements for appeals to be heard." By this reasoning, L40E1 could be used by the ACBL in the way you say. It would violate L40D and L80F, but it's a regulation not made under L80F, so it's okay. The same reasoning was used to say that SO's can bar the psyching of any (or all!) conventions, thereby permitting a stretched interpretation of L40D to override a clearly worded L40A. (How can you make a regulation under L80F, I wonder.) The upshot is this: If the WBFLLC (or a usurper of its authority) makes some specious interpretation of a law that conflicts with a more general law, a regulation made under the former takes precedence over the latter. Go figure. Anyway, I do not believe that L40E1 could be stretched that far. It is clearly subordinate to L40D, so convention card regulations made under L40E1 must comply with L40D. No, I wouldn't bet on it! Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, 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 Wed Sep 27 14:51:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8R4oxa02091 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 14:50:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8R4ost02087 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 14:50:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.24]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 21:51:07 -0700 Message-ID: <028d01c0283e$56caf980$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <003501c0276c$83227a80$97d436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <020801c02802$eee059e0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 21:44:32 -0700 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: > Marvin L. French wrote: > >Peter Gill wrote: > > > >> David Stevenson wrote: > >> > ... [snip] ... Kit Woolsey. He thought I should have stressed > >that > >> >some auctions are known to be tempo-sensitive and it is important > >> >to try to randomise the tempo with those auctions particularly. > >> > >Maintaining a slower but steady tempo in such "known" situations would > >be better, wouldn't it? > > > >Randomizing tempo is impossible, because there are times when a pair > >*must* take more than whatever minimum time is included in the random > >tempos. That makes slower tempo more likely to reflect a problem, and > >faster tempo less likely, destroying randomness. > > But at least "more likely" is better than "always". If the tray comes > back after 45 seconds, and you know this means either someone thought or > someone held on to the tray, that is better surely than knowing it means > someone thought. That would not be "even tempo." If even tempo cannot be established, then I agree. Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, 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 Wed Sep 27 15:44:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8R5hfJ02128 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 15:43:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8R5hat02124 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 15:43:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot21.domain3.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ja442685 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 15:43:26 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-221-196.tmns.net.au ([203.54.221.196]) by mail3.bigpond.com (Claudes-Happening-MailRouter V2.9b 5/4131547); 27 Sep 2000 15:43:25 Message-ID: <003f01c027e9$bec022e0$c4dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 04:44:02 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >Marvin L. French wrote: >>Peter Gill wrote: >> >>> David Stevenson wrote: >>>> ... [snip] ... Kit Woolsey. He thought I should have stressed >>>>that some auctions are known to be tempo-sensitive and >>>>it is important to try to randomise the tempo with those >>>>auctions particularly. >>> >>Maintaining a slower but steady tempo in such "known" >>situations would be better, wouldn't it? >> >>Randomizing tempo is impossible, because there are times >>when a pair *must* take more than whatever minimum time >>is included in the random tempos. That makes slower tempo >>more likely to reflect a problem, and faster tempo less likely, >>destroying randomness. > > But at least "more likely" is better than "always". If the tray >comes back after 45 seconds, and you know this means either >someone thought or someone held on to the tray, that is better >surely than knowing it means someone thought. I don't think so. There are disadvantages. The next paragraph deals with a disadvantage for the ethical pair, and the following two paragraphs deal with advantages of the new guideline for an unethical or unscrupulous pair. A disadvantage is that a highly ethical pair, who always bid in tempo even after high level preempts, are disadvantaged. In the old environment, they could infer that the hesitation of their opponent meant something. Now they can't infer anything from the opponents' tempo, i.e. they are now worse off despite their proper application of the Laws. You may think that this scenario is more theoretical than practical but I am certain that it has practical implications. The concept of "let's regulate to reduce the tempo of the bidding towards its lowest common denominator because lots of people can't manage to maintain steady tempo" would be OK if it did not have disadvantages, but there are disadvantages and to me the loss factor - the loss of even tempo - could have bad consequences. There is plenty of scope for unethical players to manipulate the new guideline, e.g by varying the randomised tempo to achieve their own nefarious ends. I'm not so sure that changing the basic nature of bridge is not opening Pandora's Box. Does the benefit outweigh the loss? I don't think so. I also expect to be outnumbered by people with the alternative view. That doesn't mean that the minority view is not worth stating - imagine if, in 2001 or 2002 when nefarious pairs have had time to consider the implications of this new guideline, a pair have come up with a way to profit by randomising the tempo to a set pattern (cf today's post by Richard Hills in the thread Untimely Question), using their watches to match the number of seconds to certain meanings. You could argue that their opponents can trap them at their own game, but that argument collapses because their opponents, and indeed the whole world, are most unlikely to ever catch on to what they're doing. I thought that arguments such as mine are why a steady tempo is desirable under the rules. I think that at the very most, the new idea should be an option for a pair to put on their WBF CC ("we use Screen Huddles", down near the Psyche section at the bottom of page one), not a guidleine which all pairs should have to follow. Peter Gill Sydney. Note that I have not had time to think this through, I am just writing quickly and probably incompletely but I feel that the points I am making are worthwhile. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 27 16:12:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8R6CER02154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 16:12:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8R6C9t02150 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 16:12:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot21.domain3.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id va444023 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 16:11:28 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-221-196.tmns.net.au ([203.54.221.196]) by mail3.bigpond.com (Claudes-Fussy-MailRouter V2.9b 5/4143111); 27 Sep 2000 16:11:25 Message-ID: <005801c027ed$a9bf68c0$c4dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Untimely question Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 05:12:04 +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 Anne Jones wrote; >A situation presented this last week-end. >E/W were late arriving, so no questions >about system had been asked.CCs were > on the table, under the bidding boxes:-) >On the first board North passed, East >opened 2D (this was alerted) and South >passed. >Immediately after passing, before West >had called South reached for opps CC >and asked what the 2D had been. >What UI do you think North had if any? >If you think North had some UI, what >do you think is demonstrably suggested >by this information? It's hard to say. Perhaps, having passed with a yarborough, South looked around for the opponent's CC, couldn't see it (I'm not sure whether your BBs are big enough to cover the CC) and thought it best to try to follow the opponent's bidding. On the other hand, South's question having a meaning such as "I have some interest in proceedings here, but no clear bid over 2D whatever it means" is probably more likely. SKIP NEXT PARAGRAPH IF SIDETRACKS ANNOY YOU: There was an Appeal at Maastricht where from oceans away, dummy's foreign language question looks highly likely to have been along the lines of "hurry up and cash your spade winners". Less likely to be "swear word, hurry up" (the use of the swear word provides some evidence of why on earth the player used a foreign language). Much much less likely to be just simply "hurry up". I do not know if that Appeal decision was meant to be a precedent that in a case such as Anne's there is no UI as long as the player later says so, but it does seem possible. Note that in the foreign language case, the AC report does not provide any evidence as to which of these three forms the "hurry up" question took, i.e. dummy never denied saying that the spades are high, so I guess that nowadays one tends to accept unquestioningly the innocent explanation of the action unless evidence suggests otherwise. :) My somewhat cynical reply therefore is: - pre-Maastricht perhaps it may suggest a hand such as Kx, Kxx, Kxx, Q109xx , where pass is the call regardless of the meaning of 2D, but - post-Maastricht perhaps it does not, and means nothing. Peter Gill 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 Sep 27 16:27:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8R6QiT02169 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 16:26:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tantalum.btinternet.com (tantalum.btinternet.com [194.73.73.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8R6Qct02165 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 16:26:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.123.48.248] (helo=D457300) by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13eAfp-0000y3-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 07:26:33 +0100 Message-ID: <002301c0284b$c02e6c60$f8307bd5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: <4.3.2.7.0.20000926043239.00a99f00@popmail.tcp.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Squeeze Appeal Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 07:25:35 +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: > Just to be accurate the ruling was that N/S was assigned a score of > 70% of 6NT=, NS +1430 Er... just to be what? 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 Sep 27 16:33:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8R6XEM02182 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 16:33:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from poseidon.tcp.net.uk (poseidon.tcp.net.uk [195.80.0.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8R6X7t02178 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 16:33:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from spock.tcp.co.uk (vt1-102.du.tcp.co.uk [195.80.1.102]) by poseidon.tcp.net.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA00640 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 07:32:57 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20000927033639.00b09700@popmail.tcp.co.uk> X-Sender: spock@popmail.tcp.co.uk X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 03:40:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: M Smith Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Squeeze Appeal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >The arguments.... [s] >Some might say that East should play to Trick 1 and then think or state >that he is thinking about the hand as a whole. Should he? Is this not >akin to declarer studying dummy for some time when he has a holding such as >A-x-x facing a singleton in the led suit. He is not obliged to tell the >defenders that he is not thinking about this trick (or, at least, no one >ever does). I am shocked at this statement from Marc, which is not true. The point I intended to make was that although one regularly does this/sees this done by a defender, declarer rarely makes any such statement. ---------- It is too late to do anything about it now, of course, but I wonder whether it is a good idea to put live hands on the Internet? Appeals Committees are meant to be composed of people who do not have advance knowledge of the case and this posting seems to reduce such people considerably. You will remember, Marc, that you were one of the people that criticised the composition of ACs at Brighton. In one case the problem came about because both potential Chairmen excused themselves because of prior knowledge and then I had no Chairman-standard member available. Generally, I would think it more sensible to discuss cases after they are dead. I agree in principle. Hopwever, in this case I understand that it is to be a referee that is to decide the issue, rather than an AC. As I understand it, the referee is Mike Allen who is not, I believe, a member of this list. I posted it now as I was interested to hear views of the list members in the hope that those opinions may assist us in presenting the case. Marc -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 27 16:42:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8R6g3402204 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 16:42:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8R6fvt02199 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 16:41:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.24]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 23:42:11 -0700 Message-ID: <02c001c0284d$d9bb56a0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <004901c017a7$d8f9ca00$1fe136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Alerts Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 23:40:35 -0700 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 Adam Wildavsky wrote: >I think the ACBL consistently > underestimates the costs in changing procedures. Rather than tweaking > the Alert system I'd suggest scrapping it completely in favor of > something substantially simpler. On the other hand, I have no better > system to propose. Any takers? > I'm working on it. Meanwhile, two simplifications of the complex ACBL Alert rules regarding doubles would help: 1. Alert all non-penalty doubles when partner has previously acted, with the exception of ordinary negative doubles after a one-level natural suit opening. 2. Alert all non-penalty doubles after one's side has bid notrump. No exceptions. These are moves toward simplification, as opposed to the "Alert the unexpected" approach. I think simplification should have priority. Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, 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 Wed Sep 27 16:48:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8R6m5D02219 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 16:48:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8R6lxt02212 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 16:47:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (user-2inis81.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.113.1]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA01782 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 02:47:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <39D198BB.1361807C@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 23:50:35 -0700 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht References: <003f01c027e9$bec022e0$c4dd36cb@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: > [Issue of randomizing time gaps in passing bidding tray through the screen] > > I don't think so. There are disadvantages. The next paragraph > deals with a disadvantage for the ethical pair, and the following > two paragraphs deal with advantages of the new guideline for > an unethical or unscrupulous pair. > > A disadvantage is that a highly ethical pair, who always bid in > tempo even after high level preempts, are disadvantaged. Whoa! It is not unethical to bid out of tempo. > In the old environment, they could infer that the hesitation of > their opponent meant something. Now they can't infer anything > from the opponents' tempo, i.e. they are now worse off despite > their proper application of the Laws. What law? Also, half the partnership isn't worse off. [snip] > That doesn't mean that the minority view is not worth stating - > imagine if, in 2001 or 2002 when nefarious pairs have had time > to consider the implications of this new guideline, a pair have > come up with a way to profit by randomising the tempo to a set > pattern (cf today's post by Richard Hills in the thread Untimely > Question), using their watches to match the number of seconds > to certain meanings. This seems unlikely. I think that randomizing, while an imperfect solution, can assist in limiting UI problems and, as such, is desirable. --JRM -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 27 19:35:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8R9YGc02329 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 19:34:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (mta01-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8R9YAt02325 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 19:34:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.4.248]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000927093406.SQMX16640.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 10:34:06 +0100 Message-ID: <001901c02866$b87f4e60$f804ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne.jones1" To: "BLML" References: <005801c027ed$a9bf68c0$c4dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Untimely question Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 10:38:39 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 8:12 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Untimely question > Anne Jones wrote; > >A situation presented this last week-end. > >E/W were late arriving, so no questions > >about system had been asked.CCs were > > on the table, under the bidding boxes:-) > >On the first board North passed, East > >opened 2D (this was alerted) and South > >passed. > >Immediately after passing, before West > >had called South reached for opps CC > >and asked what the 2D had been. > >What UI do you think North had if any? > >If you think North had some UI, what > >do you think is demonstrably suggested > >by this information? > > > My somewhat cynical reply therefore is: > > - pre-Maastricht perhaps it may suggest a hand such > as Kx, Kxx, Kxx, Q109xx , where pass is the call > regardless of the meaning of 2D, but > > - post-Maastricht perhaps it does not, and means nothing. > The actual hand:- Qx - AK73 - K97 - Q865 > North's hand > KJ75 - 96 - Q103 - AJ94 > North chose to protect with a take out double. South bid 2NT, and North raised to 3NT. > How do you 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 Sep 27 19:42:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8R9gPo02347 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 19:42:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8R9gJt02343 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 19:42:19 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id KAA25156 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 10:42:11 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 10:42 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] What are the logical alternatives here? 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: Adam wrote: > Two of the four in the Pass column thought Pass was barely a LA, > but they said they could have gone either way. > > I don't think majority should rule here. In my experience if even > one committee member considers an action a LA then it likely is a > LA. I think this is probably true if that member says "x is clearly a LA because...". In the situation above where, for example, 5C appears to be a fourth choice for 2 in 10 people then perhaps not. Indeed I would like to hear Tim Goodwin's rationale for 4H before considering that an LA. Perhaps I am biased though, 4H and 5C are bids I didn't even consider, as was redouble:-). 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 Wed Sep 27 19:45:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8R9jnQ02359 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 19:45:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8R9jit02355 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 19:45:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot06.domain1.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id sa976968 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 19:41:26 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-221-74.tmns.net.au ([203.54.221.74]) by mail1.bigpond.com (Claudes-Committed-MailRouter V2.9b 1/924491); 27 Sep 2000 19:41:25 Message-ID: <013301c0280a$fb3ae9a0$4add36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 08:41:58 +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 Grattan Endicott wrote: >Peter Gill wrote: >> With screens it is now desirable to both "randomise the tempo" >> (above) and to "maintain steady tempo" (Law 73D1 >> >+=+ Regulations for screens override the Laws in a number >of respects, as Law 80E allows.. This is one of them. With >the regulation [CoP] in place irregular tray movement should >be the order of the day. We have a way to go yet in educating >players with other habits into this procedure, but it is called >for in the regulation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Yes. My concern is that other Screen Regulations are more procedural, whereas this one presents a quandary for the player who tries to follow the approach which the Laws describe as "desirable" (Law 74D1, to "maintain steady tempo"). Is there any other Screen Regulation which like this one requires almost the opposite of what the Laws desire? Should Law 74D1 be altered to read something like: "It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo unless screens are in use in which case they should maintain unsteady tempo ..."? Part of my concern is that bridge with screens may well be the form of bridge which is presented to the public at say the Olympic Games, and random hesitations are yet another nail in the coffin that makes top bridge less accessible to the audience of rank-and-file bridge players. Do we really want to show the average players that experts at World Championships are encouraged, even required, to hesitate randomly? Might the reason for the random hesitations be a bit obscure to those who have never played with screens? Is this an unreasonable concern? Hanging in there, 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 Sep 27 22:34:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8RCXoc02491 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 22:33:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from osiris.watchic.net (mail@osiris.watchic.net [208.162.108.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8RCXat02487 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 22:33:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208.167.55.34.stnd.fuwa.net (default.9oakhill.com) [208.167.55.34] by osiris.watchic.net with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #1 (Debian)) id 13eGXM-0001Wg-00; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 08:42:12 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000927082532.00af8360@watchic.net> X-Sender: timg@watchic.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 08:33:04 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: [BLML] What are the logical alternatives here? Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk 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 10:42 AM 9/27/00 +0100, Tim West-meads wrote: >Indeed I >would like to hear Tim Goodwin's rationale for 4H before considering >that an LA. My rationale was that if some players would drive to game by bidding 4S or 5C, then it would be reasonable to bid 4H and offer a choice between those games. I gather from the response that no one would consider 4H a choice of games call, though. 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 Wed Sep 27 22:36:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8RCaYe02503 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 22:36:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8RCaOt02499 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 22:36:25 +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 e8RCaKO64074 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 08:36:20 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000927083330.00b6b510@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, 27 Sep 2000 08:37:56 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht In-Reply-To: <003501c0276c$83227a80$97d436cb@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 11:47 PM 9/25/00, Peter wrote: >With screens it is now desirable to both "randomise the tempo" >(above) and to "maintain steady tempo" (Law 73D1) and to stay on the clock > - hardly >compatible aims. What is a player to do in a situation in which following the guidelines which require him to introduce superfluous huddles before passing the tray threatens to result in his getting a slow play penalty? When each of two players has taken one second to call, that extra 13 seconds or so is an awfully long time in a situation where every minute counts. 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 Sep 27 22:48:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8RCm3j02540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 22:48:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8RClxt02536 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 22:47:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ha621433 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 22:34:15 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-225-43.tmns.net.au ([203.54.225.43]) by mail4.bigpond.com (Claudes-Equatorial-MailRouter V2.9b 7/1912879); 27 Sep 2000 22:34:14 Message-ID: <009501c02823$2039d000$2be136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Untimely question Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 11:34:48 +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 >Anne Jones wrote: >>>A situation presented this last week-end. >>>E/W were late arriving, so no questions >>>about system had been asked.CCs were >>> on the table, under the bidding boxes:-) >>>On the first board North passed, East >>>opened 2D (this was alerted) and South >>>passed. >>>Immediately after passing, before West >>>had called South reached for opps CC >>>and asked what the 2D had been > >The actual hand:- Qx - AK73 - K97 - Q865 >> >North's hand >> >KJ75 - 96 - Q103 - AJ94 >> >North chose to protect with a take out double. South bid 2NT, >and North raised to 3NT. >> >How do you rule? Assuming 3NT made, and as long as we decide that there has been UI, then pass is a LA for North (over 2D for sure, over 2NT not as clearly as he's a passed hand) and rolling it back to 2D down the approriate amount seems fair to me. Whatever the rules about questioning in Wales/England, I'd rule that the Untimely Question produced UI and adjust to 2D. But then again, I'd probably also have adjudged UI in the Maastricht Appeal which seemed to go the other way in the "we're not sure the possible UI means anything" decision (ref. my previous post in this thread), so my view might not be mainstream. Finally, a basic question: To what extent am I allowed to be affected by the contents of South's hand when I make my ruling after play finishes? 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 Sep 27 22:51:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8RCpJq02552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 22:51:19 +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 e8RCpCt02548 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 22:51:13 +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 e8RCp9O64936 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 08:51:09 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000927084838.00b64220@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, 27 Sep 2000 08:52:45 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Untimely question In-Reply-To: <001d01c02797$4892d060$ab05ff3e@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:53 AM 9/26/00, anne.jones1 wrote: >A situation presented this last week-end. >E/W were late arriving, so no questions >about system had been asked.CCs were > on the table, under the bidding boxes:-) >On the first board North passed, East >opened 2D (this was alerted) and South >passed. >Immediately after passing, before West >had called South reached for opps CC >and asked what the 2D had been. >What UI do you think North had if any? North now knows that South wanted to pass 2D regardless of what it meant. Without the extraneous action, North would have assumed that South knew (or thought he knew) the meaning of 2D when he passed. >If you think North had some UI, what >do you think is demonstrably suggested >by this information. That North stay out of the auction with a marginal hand. Although in real life I suspect E-W will not get an adjustment unless North passes with a hand a bit too heavy to be genuinely marginal. 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 Sep 27 23:14:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8RDEQJ02606 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 23:14:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8RDEMt02602 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 23:14:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id fa622419 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 23:14:21 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-225-43.tmns.net.au ([203.54.225.43]) by mail4.bigpond.com (Claudes-Rainy-MailRouter V2.9b 7/1922164); 27 Sep 2000 23:14:20 Message-ID: <017c01c02828$b9b31ca0$2be136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] What are the logical alternatives here? Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 12:14:52 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam Wildavsky should have written: >>EW Vul, Matchpoints >> >>W N E S >> P 2H 2H is weak and could be a 5 card suit >>P P 3C P >>3H X P P 3H asks for a heart stop and pass denies one >>3S P 3N P 3N shows a partial heart stop, typically Qx or Jxx >> >>West holds: >> >>AKQJ >>843 >>A65 >>876 >> >>Which are his logical alternatives? > >Here are the results from our all-star panel: > >Name P 4C 4H 4S 5C XX > >Tim Goodwin x x >Ron Johnson x x >Adam Beneschan x x x x >Chris Pisarra x >Roger Pewick x >Richard Hills x x x >Peter Newman x x x x >A. L. Edwards x >Michael Kopera x >David Stevenson x x x x x > >Total 4 10 2 5 2 1 > >Two of the four in the Pass column thought Pass was barely >a LA, but they said they could have gone either way. > >I don't think majority should rule here. In my experience if even one >committee member considers an action a LA then it likely is a LA. > >Here's more of the tale. East hesitated before bidding 3NT. All >parties concede that West had UI. The next question is: What >does the UI demonstrably suggest? Usually the UI would >suggest pulling rather than sitting with a marginal hand, but >here most of those who counted Pass a LA were hoping for >heart blockage. > >So, part two of the question, especially for those who agree >that Pass is a LA: > >Which action(s) does UI demonstrably suggest? Or, what kind >of hand would have trouble bidding 3N in tempo here? > >Again, I'll summarize replies to the list. If you'd rather post your >answer, though, go for it! The slow 3NT by a passed hand could mean lots of things: - a shapely hand unsuitable for NT with a partial stopper. e.g. -, Qx(x), Qxxx(x), KQxxxx - bare HK, or H10xx. - spade support and a partial heart stopper. - extreme weakness and thus reluctance to bid 3NT because West passed 2H. - poor clubs e.g xx, QJ, KQx, Qxxxxx. - difficulty remembering the system. - in the World Mixed Teams in which you played recently, it could well indicate a desire to protect one's own back i.e. a pause to glance at the CC to see if the unalerted 2H should have been alerted. So I think the UI suggests 4C, 4S & (to a much lesser extent) 5C & Pass. If you include the fact that players often don't notice that partner is a passed hand, then it suggests 4H too. Doesn't suggest redouble, does suggest 3C. :) 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 Thu Sep 28 00:44:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8REh1o02659 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 00:43:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8REgtt02655 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 00:42:55 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id PAA26541 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 15:42:47 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 15:42 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] What are the logical alternatives here? 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: <4.3.2.7.2.20000927082532.00af8360@watchic.net> Tim Goodwin wrote: > At 10:42 AM 9/27/00 +0100, Tim West-meads wrote: > >Indeed I would like to hear Tim Goodwin's rationale for 4H before > >considering that an LA. > > My rationale was that if some players would drive to game by > bidding 4S or 5C, then it would be reasonable to bid 4H and offer a > choice between those games. I gather from the response that no one > would consider 4H a choice of games call, though. Would that require special agreements? My natural inclination would be to regard it as a cue-bid. I guess it depends to an extent on whether 3H established a game-forcing situation. 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 Sep 28 00:46:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8REjxT02672 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 00:45:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8REjqt02667 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 00:45:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.4.61]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000927144547.UUPW13676.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 15:45:47 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01c02892$45672de0$3d04ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne.jones1" To: "BLML" References: <009501c02823$2039d000$2be136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Untimely question Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 15:50:24 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 2:34 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Untimely question > >Anne Jones wrote: > >>>A situation presented this last week-end. > >>>E/W were late arriving, so no questions > >>>about system had been asked.CCs were > >>> on the table, under the bidding boxes:-) > >>>On the first board North passed, East > >>>opened 2D (this was alerted) and South > >>>passed. > >>>Immediately after passing, before West > >>>had called South reached for opps CC > >>>and asked what the 2D had been > > > >The actual hand:- Qx - AK73 - K97 - Q865 > >> > >North's hand > >> > >KJ75 - 96 - Q103 - AJ94 > >> > >North chose to protect with a take out double. South bid 2NT, > >and North raised to 3NT. > >> > >How do you rule? > > > Assuming 3NT made, and as long as we decide that there > has been UI, then pass is a LA for North (over 2D for sure, > over 2NT not as clearly as he's a passed hand) and rolling > it back to 2D down the approriate amount seems fair to me. > > Whatever the rules about questioning in Wales/England, > I'd rule that the Untimely Question produced UI and adjust > to 2D. > > But then again, I'd probably also have adjudged UI in the > Maastricht Appeal which seemed to go the other way in > the "we're not sure the possible UI means anything" decision > (ref. my previous post in this thread), so my view might not > be mainstream. > Table result 3NT= NS +600 EW -600 TDs adjusted score 2D - 1 NS +50 EW -50 This was how I ruled, and my ruling was upheld at an appeal by NS. > > Finally, a basic question: > To what extent am I allowed to be affected by the contents > of South's hand when I make my ruling after play finishes? > I believe that South's hand is irrelevant to the extent of deciding the acceptability of North's actions. I might look at South's hand if I felt that there had been any advantage taken if North had found a bid "despite" South's question. In this case I was happy with South's 2NT action, but VERY unhappy with North's raise to 3NT. However as I was ruling back to 2D, I let that wash over me:-) Anne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 28 01:01:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8RF1lT02691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 01:01:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8RF1dt02687 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 01:01:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from p91s07a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.103.146] helo=pacific) by cobalt5-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13eIfE-0001RV-00; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 15:58:29 +0100 Message-ID: <001501c02893$5d7ab400$926793c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Peter Gill" , "Bridge Laws" References: <013301c0280a$fb3ae9a0$4add36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 12:35:42 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Gill To: Bridge Laws Sent: 26 September 2000 23:41 Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht ----------------- \x/ ------------------- > > Is there any other Screen Regulation which like this one > requires almost the opposite of what the Laws desire? > > Should Law 74D1 be altered to read something like: > > "It is desirable, though not always required, for players > to maintain steady tempo unless screens are in use in > which case they should maintain unsteady tempo ..."? > +=+ There is something of a dilemma as to the extent to whch the laws should impinge upon regulation in the area particularly of play with screens. It is something that I believe the General Review of the laws will be bound to address and I have made a note of this item amongst others that might be affected. Rules and Regulations Committees. will need to be consulted ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > ______________- \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 Thu Sep 28 02:02:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8RG1qu02729 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 02:01:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8RG1jt02725 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 02:01:46 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e8RG21Y26510 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 12:02:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200009271602.e8RG21Y26510@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] What are the logical alternatives here? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 12:02:01 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "Tim West-meads" at Sep 27, 2000 03:42:00 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads writes: > > In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20000927082532.00af8360@watchic.net> > Tim Goodwin wrote: > > At 10:42 AM 9/27/00 +0100, Tim West-meads wrote: > > >Indeed I would like to hear Tim Goodwin's rationale for 4H before > > >considering that an LA. > > > > My rationale was that if some players would drive to game by > > bidding 4S or 5C, then it would be reasonable to bid 4H and offer a > > choice between those games. I gather from the response that no one > > would consider 4H a choice of games call, though. > > Would that require special agreements? My natural inclination would > be to regard it as a cue-bid. I guess it depends to an extent on > whether 3H established a game-forcing situation. I'd give long odds that the partnership has no agreement what an in-tempo 4H means. Beyond the fact that it's forcing. And who knows what 4S would mean over the 4H. 4H in most partnerships is kind of like what an old chess player called playing for heart failure. It prolongs the auction in the hope that some miracle will arise. Having said that, it falls into the not-pass category which is all that matters for now. I think the first question is whether pass is a LA. -- 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 Sep 28 04:13:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8RICif02845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 04:12:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8RICbt02841 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 04:12:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.196] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13eLh3-0006QY-00; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 19:12:33 +0100 Message-ID: <001301c028ae$ab664240$c45608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000925083911.00ab8e30@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20000925131808.00a96c50@127.0.0.1> <01ed01c027f1$e67b0f40$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Merry-go-round Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 19:07:00 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 8:38 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Merry-go-round > > Eric Landau wrote: > (The following is more authoritative-sounding than my non-position may > warrant. It is just my opinion of what is currently required by the > ACBL. For now I am not addressing the issue of whether initial actions > can be varied according to opposing countermeasures for them.) > +=+ On which point the late R T Higson, when Chief Director for the English Bridge Union, ruled that (1) after a pre-emptive (or any) bid was made LHO could ask its meaning; (2) LHO could then call and the next player in his turn could ask the meaning; and so on round the table. Thus he established the sequence in which players must determine the meanings of their calls. Of course this was twenty or more years ago...................... ~ 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 Sep 28 05:44:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8RJhm402907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 05:43:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8RJhft02903 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 05:43:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4oh.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.17]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA11531 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 15:43:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000e01c028bb$c234a7c0$1113f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Alerts Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 15:47:22 -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 Would you still announce negative? What about a bid that most would consider negative that you play penalty...alert, or let the failure to announce therefore simplify your rule to "Alert all non-penalty doubles when partner has previously acted except negative doubles which should be announced." This would be simpler still I think. Craig >Adam Wildavsky wrote: > >>I think the ACBL consistently >> underestimates the costs in changing procedures. Rather than >tweaking >> the Alert system I'd suggest scrapping it completely in favor of >> something substantially simpler. On the other hand, I have no better >> system to propose. Any takers? >> >I'm working on it. Meanwhile, two simplifications of the complex ACBL >Alert rules regarding doubles would help: > >1. Alert all non-penalty doubles when partner has previously acted, > with the exception of ordinary negative doubles after a one-level >natural suit opening. > >2. Alert all non-penalty doubles after one's side has bid notrump. No >exceptions. > >These are moves toward simplification, as opposed to the "Alert the >unexpected" approach. I think simplification should have priority. > >Marv (Marvin L. French) >mlfrench@writeme.com >San Diego, CA, 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 Thu Sep 28 06:02:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8RK1pU02927 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 06:01:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8RK1jt02923 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 06:01:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4oh.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.17]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA08788 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 16:01:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001301c028be$4817f200$1113f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 16:05:26 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Life was very simple when a revoke was a two trick penalty, period. In a perhaps misguided attempt to improve equity, we came up with the present complex law which gives a significant advantage to those (few) who understand it, and frequently makes people feel they are being treated unfairly. The game does not seem to be worth the candle. Let's either go back to the draconian two tricks always, or go to a one trick always (but director may impose more if needed to restore equity in either case). I prefer 2 tricks plus equity...nobody told you to revoke. Pay attention. If you don't, tough. You won't revoke as much in future. Rules that worked well for over half a century yet were simple to understand and tended to improve one's bridge should not have been discarded...and should be brought back. None but the careless would be harmed...and developing players would be spared one of the needless complexities that keep many from the game. I suspect that DALB can find a still simpler rule (other than revokers should be shot) and since, unlike claims, revokes are bad for the game we'd probably agree. John of course might favour a rule that revoker buys for the table...also a capital idea I think. :-) Craig -----Original Message----- From: Michael S. Dennis To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 6:05 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke >At 09:23 AM 9/26/2000 PDT, Adam wrote: >>> >>> I don't know what to make of the authors' intentions, and find myself drawn >>> to contemplate these only when the Laws themselves are unclear. Such is not >>> the case in this instance. But to answer your rhetorical question, no, I >>> doubt that the authors wished to punish people for making legitimate >>> claims. Nor do I. But I reject your characterization of this as a >>> punishment. >> >>OK, so call it a "reward" if you prefer. It doesn't matter what you >>call it. You're giving South a lower score for doing nothing wrong, >>and for making a legitimate claim of the sort we really want to >>encourage. The fact is, if your interpretation is correct, then a >>declarer should *never* claim if there is *any* possibility that a >>defender might have revoked previously. That would eliminate perhaps >>60-80% of all claims (just a guess). > >Consider two scenarios, A and B. In A, South plays a club and West wins the >last two tricks, while in scenario B, South plays a heart, and East wins >one of the last two tricks. I hope it is clear to all that the correct way >to handle the respective revoke assessments is that in A South is awarded >only one trick, while in B South receives a two-trick adjustment. Consider >the argument proferred by the luckless South who chooses to play a club: > >"I really should receive two tricks in this situation. From a bridge >standpoint, playing a club or a heart to trick 12 are entirely equivalent, >and it is totally unfair that in one case I get one trick and in the other >I get two. Did the authors of the Laws really intend to punish me this way? >Obviously not, so we should correct their apparent oversight and give me >the benefit of the doubt. A one-trick adjustment is simply bizarre and >counter to the essence of the game." > >To which I would answer: > >"The revoke Laws are clear as they apply to your case. East did not 'win >any tricks with a card he could have played to the revoke trick', and so >you are only entitled to the single-trick bonus. The authors of the Laws >certainly had no intention of punishing you: rather they established a >formal procedure for assessing a revoke penalty. We consider the facts of >your case in light of that procedure and rule accordingly, without regard >for hypothetical situations. > >"It is true that this procedure is somewhat arbitrary, in that players will >occasionally be awarded bonus tricks unrelated to their skill or to any >actual harm suffered due to the revoke. But the quality of the procedure >that makes it arbitrary is also a virtue, because it is relatively simple >and easy to apply to a situation that arises with some frequency. And >remember that 'arbitrary' is not the same as 'unfair'. What _would_ be >manifestly unfair would be for me to assume that the authors of the Laws >were simply incompetent, and to elevate my own ideas about the 'essence of >the game' above the requirements of the Laws." > >Is it perfectly clear that South's argument is bogus? He is correct that he >did nothing wrong, and yet has received a lesser outcome than if he had >taken an apparently equivalent course of action. But that does not mean he >has been punished, nor that the procedures under which these differing >outcomes are assessed are badly flawed. And we certainly should not imagine >that the asymmetry of these outcomes justifies our suspension of the >written Laws. > >Now let us add Scenario C to the mix, C for Concession. And again we must >ask the question: has East won a trick with a card he could have played to >the revoke trick? Adam asks us to fuzz up the language here, claiming that >"win" is used in a variety of contexts elsewhere in the Laws (including >some clearly hypothetical), and that an over-literal interpretation would >result in a number of absurd contradictions. Fine, but the language here is >rather specific and concrete in referring to winning a trick with a with a >specific card. It neither requires nor invites speculation about >hypothetical alternative results, which are implicit in the >claim/concession examples Adam gives. > >I believe that the language of L64A is specific and clear in this case. >Adam conceded as much in an earlier post, but finds the result to be so >"bizarre" that we are justified in ignoring that language to honor what he >presumes about the intentions of the lawmakers. His argument is not so >different from that given by the South player above: Because South is >blameless in choosing among apparently equivalent options, he should be >credited with having chosen the most favorable, regardless of what actually >happened. Sorry, won't wash. > >Nor will the doomsday scenario of what will happen if we do rule in accord >with the Laws. People will still concede, and the tiny minority who >consider the "added cost" imposed on a conceder by this interpretation (in >general, it is irrelevant to a claim) too overwhelming will not add a >significant burden to the game. > >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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 28 06:50:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8RKoJA02950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 06:50:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8RKoCt02946 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 06:50:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.79] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13eO9X-000AHT-00; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 21:50:08 +0100 Message-ID: <000d01c028c4$aee1ab60$4f5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "M Smith" , References: <4.3.2.7.0.20000927033639.00b09700@popmail.tcp.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Squeeze Appeal Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 21:49:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 3:40 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Squeeze Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------------- [I had avoided reading any responses to M Smith's initial email. However, I am now excused the task of dealing with the appeal so I can state my position ~ Grattan ~ ] -------------------------------------------------------------------- > David Stevenson wrote: > > I agree in principle. Hopwever, in this case I understand that it is to be > a referee that is to decide the issue, rather than an AC. As I understand > it, the referee is Mike Allen who is not, I believe, a member of this list. > > I posted it now as I was interested to hear views of the list members in > the hope that those opinions may assist us in presenting the case. > +=+ This is naive. The only statements that can affect the decision are those which were made at the time. Thoughts that may have occurred to players subsequently, and especially those suggested to them, do not affect the issue. The players' state of mind at the time is what will persuade the referee. Had the matter come to me on the day I would have wanted East to provide a demonstrable bridge reason for his need to stop to think at length twice. Having thought at length before taking the trick, a player of even moderate quality will have determined not only his play to the trick, but also his lead to the next trick. The second pause is suggestive of an occurrence that he had not anticipated - such as, perhaps, that he had won the trick (although I remain to be convinced that his thinking would not have covered this possibility also). It was for the player when explaining to the Director to show why he needed to think again. It is too late to think of a reason now. In the light of his actual holding the player would have found it easier to justify if he had taken the first trick and then done his thinking. Or if he had made it known he was not thinking about his play to the first trick. There is a secondary question that might influence the view of the NS score (only): one would like to see the layout of the small cards. The lead of C5 is from what? Except as a false card just occasionally (but not unheard of at slam level) how reasonable is it to place the K with the hand on lead? As triallist quality players, should NS benefit to the full from an adjustment? The question is open. I would say that exploration of this ruling could potentially even leave both sides worse off, insofar as anything yet persuades 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 Thu Sep 28 06:55:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8RKtr802962 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 06:55:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hermes.isi.com (hermes.isi.com [192.73.222.27]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8RKtkt02958 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 06:55:47 +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 NAA28335 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 13:57:21 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard Willey" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: RE: [BLML] ACBL Alerts Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 16:58:56 -0400 Message-ID: <002901c028c5$c0007e20$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: <4.3.2.7.1.20000925163128.00b4e860@127.0.0.1> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > Personally, I belive both schools are correct; I firmly > reject the notion that an unalerted bid must have only one specific > meaning. IMO, alerts should be reserved (as was originally > intended) for meanings of calls that (modal or LCD) players do not > expect, rather than for any they do not themselves choose to > employ. And here we have the crux of the matter. There are a variety of different metrics that can be used to evaluate any potential alert system. - From my perspective, there are two primary metrics that I consider: The first is the simplicity of the system. The second is the efficiency of the system. I argue that the failure to alert a call should convey a very specific meaning. The failure to alert a call means that this call conforms to Standard American Purple Card. As an specific example, if Standard American Purple Card were based on 5 card majors, than I believe that players should alert a 4 card major opening. Eric argues that the failure to alert a call should convey a less specific meaning. The failure to alert a call means that the call belongs to some set of "normally expected" bids. Forgive me for putting words in Eric's mouth, but I believe that he would consider a 4 card majors to be considered "normally expected". He would probably consider a canape style 1M opening like Blue Club to be unusual enough to warrant an alert. It occurs to me that if we compare the approaches, their efficiency is directly related variance in bidding systems being used. Consider a situation where the vast majority of individual pairs adopt a wide variety of bidding systems. In this case, an extremely small percentage of the bids being made would conform to Standard American Purple Card. If the alert structure that I proposed were being used in this situation, individual pairs would be forced to alert nearly all of their bids. As a result, the act of alerting itself would essentially be noise in the system. (I would argue that under the British alert structure, the alert of a 2C bid in the sequence 1N - (P) - 2C conveys virtually no information) In contrast, consider a situation where approximately 50% of the calls during the course of a game conform to the Standard American Purple Card system. I would argue that the alert system that Eric proposes is more appropriate in the first example. The looser alert criteria would decrease the frequency of the alert and increase its discriminating power. The structure that I propose would work better in the second case. (For anyone who cares, a binary flag like an alert has the most discriminating power if it occurs 50% of the time) Simply put, if the efficiency of an alert structure is being used as a metric, then the design of an optimal structure must consider the distribution of bidding methods in use. I don't suppose anyone anyone has every seen a survey describing the distribution of bidding methods in use in particular environments? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOdJfjbFdMFbo8dHHEQKTNwCghM1EiakHjhKG09CeCCYiv9e+LH8AoJYw 6SISrcSvPJrRD3emAsUWNT9D =gDzA -----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 Sep 28 07:09:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8RL9E002982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 07:09:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8RL98t02978 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 07:09:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.107] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13eORi-000AjP-00; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 22:08:55 +0100 Message-ID: <002501c028c7$4eaae740$4f5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Craig Senior" , References: <001301c028be$4817f200$1113f7a5@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 21:56:20 +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 To: Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 9:05 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke > Life was very simple when a revoke was a two trick penalty, period. In a > perhaps misguided attempt to improve equity, we came up with the present > complex law > +=+ Would anyone buy "restore equity and apply a procedural penalty"? ~ 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 Sep 28 09:47:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8RNkb103092 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 09:46:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8RNkUt03088 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 09:46:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivet0t.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.116.29]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA31585 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 19:46:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000927194614.0133a024@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 19:46:14 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke In-Reply-To: <001301c028be$4817f200$1113f7a5@oemcomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:05 PM 9/27/2000 -0400, Craig wrote: >Life was very simple when a revoke was a two trick penalty, period. In a >perhaps misguided attempt to improve equity, we came up with the present >complex law which gives a significant advantage to those (few) who >understand it, and frequently makes people feel they are being treated >unfairly. The game does not seem to be worth the candle. Let's either go >back to the draconian two tricks always, or go to a one trick always (but >director may impose more if needed to restore equity in either case). I >prefer 2 tricks plus equity...nobody told you to revoke. Pay attention. If >you don't, tough. You won't revoke as much in future. Rules that worked well >for over half a century yet were simple to understand and tended to improve >one's bridge should not have been discarded...and should be brought back. >None but the careless would be harmed...and developing players would be >spared one of the needless complexities that keep many from the game. I >suspect that DALB can find a still simpler rule (other than revokers should >be shot) and since, unlike claims, revokes are bad for the game we'd >probably agree. John of course might favour a rule that revoker buys for the >table...also a capital idea I think. :-) I don't get out much, but even so I imagine I would have heard about a rash of problems applying the "new" revoke law. It really isn't very difficult, the current thread notwithstanding. I presume that the authors wanted the revoke penalties to accord more closely with the probable effect of the offense, in keeping with the general philosophical view that the primary purpose is to restore equity, rather than to punish. At the same time, Grattan's suggestion that the law could be rewritten simply to instruct the TD to "restore equity" would impose an unreasonable and probably unsupportable burden. This is a relatively common offense, and the notion that every revoke would require a thorough analysis to determine an equitable penalty seems a bit much. I don't have any real problem with returning to the automatic 2-trick standard, but the change was an attempt to deal with an identified problem: in many cases the 2-trick penalty really is draconian, compared with penalties assessed for comparable lapses. It seems to me it does accomplish that objective, and the cost in complexity and perceived arbitrariness is not that great. 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 Thu Sep 28 13:32:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8S3Vbi03226 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 13:31:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8S3VWt03222 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 13:31:32 +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 NAA08089; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 13:26:10 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 14:26:51 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] L12C3 (was Which Squeeze Appeal) To: Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk...C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 14:28:02 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 28/09/2000 02:23:49 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: [big snip] As triallist quality players, should NS benefit to the full from an adjustment? The question is open. I would say that exploration of this ruling could potentially even leave both sides worse off, insofar as anything yet persuades me. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >From my reading of the original posting, the TD ruled that had no infraction occurred, 6NT would have made 70% of the time and failed by one trick 30% of the time. Then, under L73F2 and L12C3 the TD gave a weighted adjusted score based on those percentages. However, had this been an ACBL event, where L12C3 is disabled, both TD and AC would have had an easy ruling of +1440 NS and -1440 EW under L12C2. This is one of the few ACBL policies I support. If East wants to defeat 6NT 30% of the time, East should play in Lawful tempo. IMHO, *equity* is only theoretically the purpose of L12C3. In practice, L12C3 gives infractors a no-lose position. At worst, infractors' scores are rolled back to par, while they gain if the TD is not summoned or they get an idiosyncratic ruling from the TD/AC (such as a penalty on the non-offending side for taking a *double-shot* or *not protecting their own back*). Best wishes R -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 28 17:51:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8S7nth03342 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:49:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8S7nnt03338 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:49:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.24]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 00:50:03 -0700 Message-ID: <001901c02920$8639c880$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <000e01c028bb$c234a7c0$1113f7a5@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Alerts Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 00:45:57 -0700 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 Craig Senior wrote: > Would you still announce negative? What about a bid that most would consider > negative that you play penalty...alert, or let the failure to announce > therefore simplify your rule to "Alert all non-penalty doubles when partner > has previously acted except negative doubles which should be announced." > This would be simpler still I think. > Yes, much better. The corollary to not Alerting negative doubles is that penalty doubles of overcalls would have to be Alerted, as is the case now. How much simpler to Announce negative doubles, whereupon all unAlerted/unAnnounced doubles after partner has acted are penalty-oriented, no exceptions. A fully consistent rule requiring that all non-penalty doubles must be Alerted, going back to the former rule of Alerting negative doubles, would be even better, but I doubt it would find enough favor to be adopted. I am a fan of Announcements. If I were sure it would never help a confused pair more than an Alert does, I would like to see Announcements used exclusively. Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, 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 Thu Sep 28 18:02:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8S802S03364 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 18:00:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8S7xut03356 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:59:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.24]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 01:00:11 -0700 Message-ID: <002101c02921$f0ccff40$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <001301c028be$4817f200$1113f7a5@oemcomputer> <002501c028c7$4eaae740$4f5908c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 00:57:47 -0700 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: Craig Senior wrote: > > > > > Life was very simple when a revoke was a two trick penalty, period. In a > > perhaps misguided attempt to improve equity, we came up with the present > > complex law > > > +=+ Would anyone buy "restore equity and apply > a procedural penalty"? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > And then we could go on to restore equity after all mechanical goofs: LOOTs, BOOTs, exposed cards, insufficient bids, etc. Let PPs reign! Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, 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 Thu Sep 28 18:31:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8S8SFX03382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 18:28:15 +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 e8S8S8t03378 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 18:28:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.218] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13eZ2s-000KDN-00; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 09:27:59 +0100 Message-ID: <000901c02926$2c58ff60$da5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Cc: "bridge-laws" , "Grattan Endicott" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] L12C3 (was Which Squeeze Appeal) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 09:28:31 +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 To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 5:28 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L12C3 (was Which Squeeze Appeal) > > Grattan wrote: > > [big snip] > > As triallist quality > players, should NS benefit to the full from an > adjustment? The question is open. > I would say that exploration of this ruling > could potentially even leave both sides worse > off, insofar as anything yet persuades me. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > IMHO, *equity* is only theoretically the purpose of L12C3. In practice, > L12C3 gives infractors a no-lose position. At worst, infractors' scores > are rolled back to par, while they gain if the TD is not summoned or they > get an idiosyncratic ruling from the TD/AC (such as a penalty on the > non-offending side for taking a *double-shot* or *not protecting their own > back*). > +=+ That is too jaundiced a view. The use of 12C3 can be misconceived. In any case, where a score is rolled back to 'equity' it is advocated that there should be a penalty for any infraction. Do not confuse misuse of 12C3 (as of any law) with the scope that the law provides for fairer treatment of players when appropriate. The Director here is a sound one; he consulted by phone with a highly competent exponent of the use of 12C3; I do not know sufficient about the facts (other than as seen by M.Smith, who may have a bias) to comment on the view taken. I do think I would have needed some convincing, from what I know at present, to leave the EW score adjustment untouched. As for NS I would want to consider how much declarer may have contributed to his own downfall, given the spot cards and the play be East. I say no more than that. I think Marc has probably done his side a major disservice by putting the case on blml before the appeal has been resolved. ~ 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 Sep 28 22:46:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8SCgZj03565 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 22:42:35 +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-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 e8SCgSt03561 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 22:42:29 +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 e8SCgNO74432 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 08:42:23 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000928083417.00ab42a0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 08:44:02 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Merry-go-round In-Reply-To: <01ed01c027f1$e67b0f40$189c1e18@san.rr.com> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000925083911.00ab8e30@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20000925131808.00a96c50@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:38 PM 9/26/00, Marvin wrote: >Let's be specific. The cc has a place for indication of the quality of >preempts, "Sound," "Light," or "Very Light." Let's say the last >describes your methods. It is permitted to vary your preempts >according to style and judgment within the bounds of "Very Light," but >if you cross that boundary frequently enough that your partner may >account for it, then you must also check "Light." Now opponents will >know that you may vary preempts from light to very light. They are >entitled to that knowledge. They may ask what the conditions are for >variances, and the answer may be something like "Merely according to >our individual judgment, although we tend to tighten up when >vulnerable." As in this response, variations based on vulnerability or >seat position must be disclosed, but not those based on style or >judgment. > >Where a HCP range is required on the CC, as for notrump openings, you >have to play that range. If you want to vary it frequently (without >crossing a HCP boundary, of course) for reasons of style and judgment, >fine, but make a note to that effect: "Full range not always used." If >you don't want to do that, Alert the bid and explain that it may be >based on a HCP subrange (undefined) within the range shown, for >reasons of judgment or style. > >In short, you have to play what is on the cc, or disclose permissible >deviations from it. > >If you agree with this, Eric, we can proceed. I agree with it as stated, but it's not really on the point I was trying to make. To proceed, we need to agree that there is a difference between method and judgment, that the former is subject to the kind of constraints Marv discusses, and that players have freedom to exercise the latter. We need not agree, for the discussion in this thread, just where the line is drawn. My point is that given that we're in the realm of exercising our judgment, we can't be constrained by our presumed "bridge" motives for doing so. If our judgment tells us to handle a hand differently against two different pairs, it makes no sense to say things like "you can do that if your criterion is the pairs' differing levels of ability, but not if it's their methods". I must be allowed to do it because it "feels right", and cannot be required to psycho-analyze myself to determine if what I wish to do is legal. 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 Sep 28 23:00:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8SCxvF03578 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 22:59:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8SCxot03574 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 22:59:51 +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 e8SD2bm13645 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 09:02:37 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000928085115.00a98ae0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 09:01:24 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] ACBL Alerts 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 07:44 PM 9/26/00, Todd wrote: >>From: Eric Landau >> >>The idea that "any alert structure requires some system..." is not only >>wrong, but is typical of the thinking that has produced the ACBL's >>notoriously complex and unpopular alert structure. Consider the British >>rule: all artificial bids must be alerted. That is simple, >>straightforward, trivial for even novices to understand, and neither has >>nor needs any reference to any "baseline" system. > > False. The baseline system here is "all bids are natural." No > alerting system currently used fails to satisfy this proposition, as much > as I've been able to think about the problem: I can play 2/1 GF stripped of all conventions. I can play EHAA stripped of all conventions. In either case all of my bids are natural. Todd seems to be saying that I would be playing the same system in either case, which doesn't have any validity of all under any reasonable definition of "system". Certainly the same bid might have two very different meanings depending on which of the above I choose to play. >If YourTreatment(bid, bidding-sequence) intersect Baseline(bid, >bidding-sequence) <> YourTreatment(bid, bidding-sequence), then bid is >alertable. (whether delayed, alerted, or announced) > >Baseline and YourTreatment are functions which return sets, possibly >empty, possibly with cardinality of one, possibly lots of meanings. > >There may not be an official baseline, per se, however there is nothing >incorrect (yet) by assigning one and looking at the problem from that >direction. I'm not certain about whether generality is lost or not. I suggest Todd revisit the ongoing discussion of Classic Bridge. What killed it dead was the same failure to distinguish between "all bids natural" and "some system". It just makes no sense. There are a near-infinite number of different approaches to bidding that could be devised subject to the constraint that all bids be natural. >>Then some influential people came up with the foolish and destructive >>notion that, somehow, the lack of an alert should unambiguously define the >>meaning of the unalerted call, that it should never be necessary to inquire >>about an unalerted call because the lack of an alert should tell you all >>you need to know. That's where the idea of a baseline system came from, >>and that's also when the alert procedure started to take on the stench of >>unpopularity which it continues to exude. > > If they do have that idea, they missed one. A cue bid is almost > never alerted except when natural, so the lack of alert for a cue bid > says nothing. Could be Michael's, could be a strong takeout, could be a > transfer to the next higher suit (if your partner has not bid yet), .... Luckily for everyone concerned, the ACBL has not yet officially adopted the notion of a baseline system for the alert procedure. But their interpretations on specific points do seem to be moving in that direction. 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 Sep 28 23:02:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8SD2lV03594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 23:02:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8SD2bt03590 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 23:02:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-54.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.54]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27830 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 15:00:47 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39D31C7E.7FE4F7DD@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 12:25:02 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] L12C3 (was Which Squeeze Appeal) References: 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: > > Grattan wrote: > > > >From my reading of the original posting, the TD ruled that had no > infraction occurred, 6NT would have made 70% of the time and failed by one > trick 30% of the time. Then, under L73F2 and L12C3 the TD gave a weighted > adjusted score based on those percentages. > > However, had this been an ACBL event, where L12C3 is disabled, both TD and > AC would have had an easy ruling of +1440 NS and -1440 EW under L12C2. > > This is one of the few ACBL policies I support. If East wants to defeat > 6NT 30% of the time, East should play in Lawful tempo. > > IMHO, *equity* is only theoretically the purpose of L12C3. In practice, > L12C3 gives infractors a no-lose position. At worst, infractors' scores > are rolled back to par, while they gain if the TD is not summoned or they > get an idiosyncratic ruling from the TD/AC (such as a penalty on the > non-offending side for taking a *double-shot* or *not protecting their own > back*). > > Best wishes > > R > I agree with Richard. In cases where the infraction leads directly to the good score, there should not be an "equity" 12C3. I favour 12C3 only for "second-round" corrections (the affected action 100% of the time, the weighing only for subsequent action. But I realize that the line is sometimes hard to draw. And I realize that I have agreed with some 12c3's that had only one stage (one Maastricht Appeal comes to mind). -- 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 Sep 28 23:32:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8SDW4B03620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 23:32:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from osiris.watchic.net (mail@osiris.watchic.net [208.162.108.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8SDVwt03616 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 23:31:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208.167.55.19.stnd.fuwa.net (default.9oakhill.com) [208.167.55.19] by osiris.watchic.net with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #1 (Debian)) id 13edvf-0003X3-00; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 09:40:51 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000928092831.00aecc10@watchic.net> X-Sender: timg@watchic.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 09:31:38 -0400 To: "Bridge Laws" From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Squeeze Appeal In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20000926043239.00a99f00@popmail.tcp.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:13 AM 9/26/00 +0100, M Smith wrote: >Declarer reaches 6NT on the following cards. > > Q 6 5 > A K > A Q J 8 4 3 > A 6 > > > A K 4 2 > Q J 7 6 3 > 10 > J 10 7 > >The uncontested auction has been 1H-2D (FG)-2H-3D-3NT-6NT > >West leads the C5 (playing fourth best and second highest from weak >holdings) and declarer quickly plays low from dummy. East goes into the >tank for a full two minutes, then wins the trick with the queen of clubs >and then returns to the tank for a further three minutes before returning >the two of clubs. > >Declarer wins the ace of clubs, cashes the top hearts, crosses to hand >with a spade, and cashes his heart winners. The defenders hearts divide >3-3 and then West discards the 4-3 of clubs while East throws the C9 and >the D2. What card did west play to trick 2? If it wasn't the C8 or CK, hasn't there been a revoke? Tim >Declarer must now decide which squeeze to play for. Position A: > > Q 6 > --- > A Q J > --- >J 10 9 x >--- --- >K x x x >K 8 > A 4 2 > --- > 10 > J > >The winning play is to cash two rounds of spades, squeezing West in the >minors and relying on the diamond finesse. > >Position B: > > Q 6 > --- > A Q J > --- >J 10 9 x >--- --- >K x x x >8 K > A 4 2 > --- > 10 > J > >Now declarer must play a diamond to the queen and cash the DA to squeeze >East in the black suits. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 29 00:09:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8SE9HR03648 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 00:09:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8SE9At03644 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 00:09:11 +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 QAA15454; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 16:08:46 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id QAA20273; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 16:09:03 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000928161904.007e2960@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 16:19:04 +0200 To: "Michael S. Dennis" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Untimely question In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000926234738.013421a8@pop.mindspring.com> References: <00cb01c0281a$c9466b30$3c03ac89@newmanhome> <001501c0280b$ed85e3e0$dd5408c3@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 23:47 26/09/00 -0400, Michael S. Dennis wrote: >Not to mention, as others have frequently pointed out (none more eloquently >than Eric), there are lots of good reasons to ask about an alerted call, >even when the answer is not important to your immediate decision. In fact, >asking questions _only_ when the answer is of immediate importance is >_much_ more likely to be a source of UI than simply asking whenever you are >unsure of the meaning of the opponents' bids, which is when most of us do >it. And the least informative time to ask (and generally the most useful to >you as well) is at your first opportunity following the alert. AG : this remembers me of a curious case. I was holding something like that : QJx - xx - xxx - Q10xxx No one vulnerable; RHO opened 1D. I enquired. Just in case they were playing 1D forcing (strong, or Roman), in which case I'd like to overcall 1S (light, 5+ cards in a minor, S longer than H). No, it was 'either natural 4+ cards, or 16-17 NT'. So I passed. After the deal, the director was summoned, because I had asked a question without interest about the hand. Well, as you understand, they were wrong, but I decided to make matters easy. To the TD's enquiry 'why did you ask about that opening bid', I answered 'because I like to be informed. By the way, it didn't pass any information, since the opponents didn't guess what I had'. I got away with that. It shows that if properly asked ('what is that ?' or the equivalent), a question will seldom give enough information to other players to be in itself UI. 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 Sep 29 01:57:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8SFtVd03705 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Sep 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 smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8SFtOt03701 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 01:55:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.24]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 08:55:39 -0700 Message-ID: <005401c02964$5dc78880$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <013301c0280a$fb3ae9a0$4add36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <001501c02893$5d7ab400$926793c3@pacific> Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 08:47:23 -0700 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: > +=+ There is something of a dilemma as to the extent to > whch the laws should impinge upon regulation in the area > particularly of play with screens. It is something that I believe > the General Review of the laws will be bound to address > and I have made a note of this item amongst others that > might be affected. Rules and Regulations Committees. > will need to be consulted ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > There is something of a dilemma as to the extent that regulations are impinging upon the Laws. L80F says plainly that SOs may not publish or announce regulations that are in conflict with the Laws. No amount of sophistic reasoning can get around that plain language. For the sophists, L80F should clearly state that regulations supposedly derivable from one Law are invalid if they unnecessarily conflict with another Law. Already we have: -- L40D's vague "regulate the use of bidding or play conventions" interpreted to allow unlimited regulation, even though the plain language of L40A is contravened. -- L80G's vague "make suitable arrangements for appeals to be heard" interpreted to allow a TD to apply L12C3, even though the plain language of L12C3 is contravened. And now we are seeing: -- L80E's vague "establish special conditions for play" interpreted to allow SOs to dictate uneven tempo in the bidding and play behind screen, even though the plain language of L73D1 is contravened. L80F might as well be expunged from the Laws. Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, 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 Fri Sep 29 03:05:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8SH57e03772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 03:05:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8SH50t03768 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 03:05:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13eh76-000HQS-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 18:04:53 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 01:42:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke References: <001301c028be$4817f200$1113f7a5@oemcomputer> <002501c028c7$4eaae740$4f5908c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <002501c028c7$4eaae740$4f5908c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <002501c028c7$4eaae740$4f5908c3@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicotthhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh >Questions show the mind's range, and > answers its subtlety." ~ Joubert. >iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii >iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii >----- Original Message ----- >From: Craig Senior >To: >Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 9:05 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke > > >> Life was very simple when a revoke was a two trick penalty, period. In a >> perhaps misguided attempt to improve equity, we came up with the present >> complex law >> >+=+ Would anyone buy "restore equity and apply >a procedural penalty"? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Only if you're prepared to pay for a TD every 10 tables. I had 6 revokes this afternoon in a 25 table game. Each equity ruling takes me 15 minutes at least. >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 "I agree, for what phone before fax to: 451 Mile End Road that's worth." 020 8980 4947 London E3 4PA DWS, 19/09/00 john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 29 03:09:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8SH8tO03784 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 03:08:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtppop3.gte.net (smtppop3pub.gte.net [206.46.170.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8SH8nt03780 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 03:08:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from mike (1Cust146.tnt1.bellingham.wa.da.uu.net [63.28.105.146]) by smtppop3.gte.net with ESMTP for ; id MAA26839887 Thu, 28 Sep 2000 12:04:41 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <005501c0296d$aa344420$0b00000a@mike> Reply-To: "Mike Dodson" From: "Mike Dodson" To: "BLML" References: <003501c0276c$83227a80$97d436cb@gillp.bigpond.com><020801c02802$eee059e0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 10:00:11 -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 From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 6:23 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht David Stevenson wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > >Peter Gill wrote: > > > >> David Stevenson wrote: > >> > ... [snip] ... Kit Woolsey. He thought I should have stressed > >that > >> >some auctions are known to be tempo-sensitive and it is important > >> >to try to randomise the tempo with those auctions particularly. > >> > >Maintaining a slower but steady tempo in such "known" situations would > >be better, wouldn't it? > > > >Randomizing tempo is impossible, because there are times when a pair > >*must* take more than whatever minimum time is included in the random > >tempos. That makes slower tempo more likely to reflect a problem, and > >faster tempo less likely, destroying randomness. > > But at least "more likely" is better than "always". If the tray comes > back after 45 seconds, and you know this means either someone thought or > someone held on to the tray, that is better surely than knowing it means > someone thought. > Is this really true? If randomized tempo means there is no UI, than its better for the players but "more likely" still leaves the player to deal with L73 restrictions. Worse, must deal with them even when the tempo break had nothing to do with the hand. The burden on the player to "carefully avoid taking advantage" occurs more often and sometimes needlessly. Randomized tempo seems advantageous to those who believe themselves never to have a problem with L73 and suspect their opponents sometimes fail in their duty. Since that includes all of us, it must be a good thing. ;) On the other hand, if randomized tempo means I and my opponents must more often distort our actions in case this pause might be partner's hesitation than good bridge is the loser. Finally, depending on humans to intentionally do anything random is an oxymoron. Do we want to make rulings along the lines of: I chose a suboptimal bid because I thought I may have UI from partner when in fact it was a "random tempo variation" from an opponent and HE COULD OF KNOWN it would damage me in this tempo sensitive auction. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 29 04:47:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8SIk0S03869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 04:46:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8SIjst03865 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 04:45:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.24]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 11:46:08 -0700 Message-ID: <007401c0297c$2cd64fa0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000928085115.00a98ae0@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Alerts Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 11:39:17 -0700 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 Eric Landau wrote: > > I suggest Todd revisit the ongoing discussion of Classic Bridge. What > killed it dead was the same failure to distinguish between "all bids > natural" and "some system". It just makes no sense. There are a > near-infinite number of different approaches to bidding that could be > devised subject to the constraint that all bids be natural. Several years ago I concocted a baseline system for novice duplicate players, called "Truebridge." It did away with conventions, other than a very few that seemed indispensable for a playable system (or are so nearly universal that even novices would demand them), with just a few options to be discussed with partner. The conventions: Artificial strong 2C opening Takeout doubles of opening suit bids, through ? Stayman 2C/3C Blackwood 4NT (would like to have omitted that!) Gerber opposite a notrump bid (ditto) Artificial 2NT or ranking suit response to any two-level opening DOPI or DEPO over Blackwood/Gerber interference I thought of adding two more conventions to make the system playable, but couldn't decide: Fourth suit bid by responder at the two or three level may not be natural Minor suit checkback when opener rebids 1NT Opening leads had little variability (e.g., king or ace from AKx) from standard leads, and standard carding on defense. A standard bidding specification was defined, featuring weak notrump openings and four-card majors. Five-card majors are a huge mistake for novices, who can't cope with the necessary adjuncts. Weak notrumps avoid the bidding problems associated with minimum balanced hands containing no five-card or longer suit. With a hand too good for 1NT, opener can usually bid a four-card suit and have no rebid problem. Short chapters discussed opening bids, responses, rebids by both opener and responder, etc. Extremely basic, reminiscent of pre-1960 bridge. A large number of common bidding sequences were placed in an appendix ("Forcing and Non-Forcing Situations"), with comments further refining the degree of strength shown by the last call. Also a summary of Laws and ACBL regulations that novices should know. My idea was that novices would play in Truebridge games until they were ready for more advanced games (but advancement not mandatory). They would learn proper table deportment, good ethics, Laws, regulations, and how to play cards, without the present distraction of complex conventions and bidding systems. Advancement would not be permitted until a player has demonstrated that s/he is ready for the next level. With Truebridge two strangers could play together with little discussion, and individual events would again be possible. I'd like to play in such a game myself! I can even envision a Truebridge NABC event. Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, 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 Fri Sep 29 08:58:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8SMv8r03982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 08:57:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8SMuxt03977 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 08:57:00 +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 13embm-000H1C-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 22:56:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 22:22:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Squeeze Appeal References: <4.3.2.7.0.20000927033639.00b09700@popmail.tcp.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20000927033639.00b09700@popmail.tcp.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk M Smith wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > > > >The arguments.... > > [s] > > >Some might say that East should play to Trick 1 and then think or state > >that he is thinking about the hand as a whole. Should he? Is this not > >akin to declarer studying dummy for some time when he has a holding such as > >A-x-x facing a singleton in the led suit. He is not obliged to tell the > >defenders that he is not thinking about this trick (or, at least, no one > >ever does). > > I am shocked at this statement from Marc, which is not true. > >The point I intended to make was that although one regularly does this/sees >this done by a defender, declarer rarely makes any such statement. Well, rarely is less extreme, but it is still a perfectly normal comment by ethical declarers, and he *is* obliged to tell them if his hesitation is misleading. So I would now assign your comments as 70% wrong. :) > ---------- > > It is too late to do anything about it now, of course, but I wonder >whether it is a good idea to put live hands on the Internet? Appeals >Committees are meant to be composed of people who do not have advance >knowledge of the case and this posting seems to reduce such people >considerably. > > You will remember, Marc, that you were one of the people that >criticised the composition of ACs at Brighton. In one case the problem >came about because both potential Chairmen excused themselves because of >prior knowledge and then I had no Chairman-standard member available. > > Generally, I would think it more sensible to discuss cases after they >are dead. > > >I agree in principle. Hopwever, in this case I understand that it is to be >a referee that is to decide the issue, rather than an AC. As I understand >it, the referee is Mike Allen who is not, I believe, a member of this list. That is completely irrelevant. It is up to the referee how he hears the case, with whom he sits or consults. Something may happen and eventually it may not be Mike Allen who hears the case. A friend of Mike Allen who is on BLML might ring him up and ask his opinion. >I posted it now as I was interested to hear views of the list members in >the hope that those opinions may assist us in presenting the case. Yuk! If you need help in presenting the case then I suggest you withdraw it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 29 08:58:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8SMuwY03976 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 08:56:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8SMuqt03971 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 08:56:53 +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 13embe-000H1D-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 22:56:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 22:16:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Squeeze Appeal References: <4.3.2.7.0.20000926043239.00a99f00@popmail.tcp.co.uk> <002301c0284b$c02e6c60$f8307bd5@D457300> In-Reply-To: <002301c0284b$c02e6c60$f8307bd5@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: > >> Just to be accurate the ruling was that N/S was assigned a score >of >> 70% of 6NT=, NS +1430 > >Er... just to be what? Accurate. -- 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 Sep 29 09:42:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8SNfsn04021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 09:41:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f98.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8SNfmt04017 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 09:41:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 16:41:40 -0700 Received: from 172.167.227.215 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 23:41:40 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.167.227.215] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] ACBL Alerts Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 16:41:40 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Sep 2000 23:41:40.0694 (UTC) FILETIME=[A68C7760:01C029A5] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Eric Landau >At 07:44 PM 9/26/00, Todd wrote: >> False. The baseline system here is "all bids are natural." No >>alerting system currently used fails to satisfy this proposition, as much >>as I've been able to think about the problem: > >I can play 2/1 GF stripped of all conventions. I can play EHAA stripped of >all conventions. In either case all of my bids are natural. Todd seems to >be saying that I would be playing the same system in either case, which >doesn't have any validity of all under any reasonable definition of >"system". Certainly the same bid might have two very different meanings >depending on which of the above I choose to play. System A is "All bids are natural" System B has the property that "all bids are natural" System C has the property that "all bids are natural" It does not follow that A=B, A=C, nor B=C. I am not saying that you're playing the same system in any case. B is a subset of A; C is a subset of A. B intersect C could be empty. You need to do away with the tacit assumption that an unalerted bid has only one meaning. I don't believe it to necessarily be true. >>If YourTreatment(bid, bidding-sequence) intersect Baseline(bid, >>bidding-sequence) <> YourTreatment(bid, bidding-sequence), then bid is >>alertable. (whether delayed, alerted, or announced) >> >>Baseline and YourTreatment are functions which return sets, possibly >>empty, possibly with cardinality of one, possibly lots of meanings. >> >>There may not be an official baseline, per se, however there is nothing >>incorrect (yet) by assigning one and looking at the problem from that >>direction. I'm not certain about whether generality is lost or not. > >I suggest Todd revisit the ongoing discussion of Classic Bridge. What >killed it dead was the same failure to distinguish between "all bids >natural" and "some system". It just makes no sense. There are a >near-infinite number of different approaches to bidding that could be >devised subject to the constraint that all bids be natural. Poor definition of a baseline. The proposition above will still hold true. >Luckily for everyone concerned, the ACBL has not yet officially adopted the >notion of a baseline system for the alert procedure. But their >interpretations on specific points do seem to be moving in that direction. Wherever it goes, someone is going to complain. I'd prefer to be done with alerts entirely and let the opponent beware. They are entitled to ask anytime they think it'll make a difference to know. -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 Fri Sep 29 09:55:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8SNtWu04035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 09:55:32 +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 e8SNtSt04031 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 09:55:28 +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 e8SNtRK21448 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:55:27 +1100 (EST) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:55:26 +1100 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@medvesajt.anu.edu.au To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Squeeze Appeal In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20000928092831.00aecc10@watchic.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk East had KQ92 played in the order Q29K, West had 8543 played order 5843, so yes, the endgame as described by Marc is wrong - then can only have been one club outstanding - both followed to two rounds and there have been three discards. The table declarer played West to have lead 5 from K8543 and East to have tanked twice holding Q92 which is more strange to my mind than his presumption that East could not need to think holding both big clubs... Mark Abraham On Thu, 28 Sep 2000, Tim Goodwin wrote: > At 05:13 AM 9/26/00 +0100, M Smith wrote: > >Declarer reaches 6NT on the following cards. > > > > Q 6 5 > > A K > > A Q J 8 4 3 > > A 6 > > > > > > A K 4 2 > > Q J 7 6 3 > > 10 > > J 10 7 > > > >The uncontested auction has been 1H-2D (FG)-2H-3D-3NT-6NT > > > >West leads the C5 (playing fourth best and second highest from weak > >holdings) and declarer quickly plays low from dummy. East goes into the > >tank for a full two minutes, then wins the trick with the queen of clubs > >and then returns to the tank for a further three minutes before returning > >the two of clubs. > > > >Declarer wins the ace of clubs, cashes the top hearts, crosses to hand > >with a spade, and cashes his heart winners. The defenders hearts divide > >3-3 and then West discards the 4-3 of clubs while East throws the C9 and > >the D2. > > What card did west play to trick 2? If it wasn't the C8 or CK, hasn't > there been a revoke? > > Tim > > >Declarer must now decide which squeeze to play for. Position A: > > > > Q 6 > > --- > > A Q J > > --- > >J 10 9 x > >--- --- > >K x x x > >K 8 > > A 4 2 > > --- > > 10 > > J > > > >The winning play is to cash two rounds of spades, squeezing West in the > >minors and relying on the diamond finesse. > > > >Position B: > > > > Q 6 > > --- > > A Q J > > --- > >J 10 9 x > >--- --- > >K x x x > >8 K > > A 4 2 > > --- > > 10 > > J > > > >Now declarer must play a diamond to the queen and cash the DA to squeeze > >East in the black suits. > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Sep 29 10:24:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8T0OEK04079 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:24:14 +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-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 e8T0O1t04061 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:24:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13enxp-000Hpo-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 00:23:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 00:09:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Untimely question References: <00cb01c0281a$c9466b30$3c03ac89@newmanhome> <001501c0280b$ed85e3e0$dd5408c3@dodona> <3.0.1.32.20000926234738.013421a8@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.6.32.20000928161904.007e2960@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000928161904.007e2960@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 23:47 26/09/00 -0400, Michael S. Dennis wrote: >>Not to mention, as others have frequently pointed out (none more eloquently >>than Eric), there are lots of good reasons to ask about an alerted call, >>even when the answer is not important to your immediate decision. In fact, >>asking questions _only_ when the answer is of immediate importance is >>_much_ more likely to be a source of UI than simply asking whenever you are >>unsure of the meaning of the opponents' bids, which is when most of us do >>it. And the least informative time to ask (and generally the most useful to >>you as well) is at your first opportunity following the alert. > > >AG : this remembers me of a curious case. I was holding something like that : > QJx - xx - xxx - Q10xxx >No one vulnerable; RHO opened 1D. I enquired. Just in case they were >playing 1D forcing (strong, or Roman), in which case I'd like to overcall >1S (light, 5+ cards in a minor, S longer than H). No, it was 'either >natural 4+ cards, or 16-17 NT'. So I passed. Was 1D alerted? So you in fact asked because you might have bid. Very reasonable and unexceptional. Would you have asked with xxx - xxx - QJx - 9xxx? >After the deal, the director was summoned, because I had asked a question >without interest about the hand. Well, as you understand, they were wrong, >but I decided to make matters easy. To the TD's enquiry 'why did you ask >about that opening bid', I answered 'because I like to be informed. By the >way, it didn't pass any information, since the opponents didn't guess what >I had'. >I got away with that. >It shows that if properly asked ('what is that ?' or the equivalent), a >question will seldom give enough information to other players to be in >itself UI. The fact that the oppos did not guess your distribution does not mean that UI was not passed. Perhaps your partner might guess that you had a hand suitable for bidding over a forcing 1D. -- 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 Sep 29 10:24:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8T0OMa04086 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:24:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8T0O6t04070 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:24:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13eny5-000HSI-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 00:24:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 00:21:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Untimely question References: <00cb01c0281a$c9466b30$3c03ac89@newmanhome> 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: >I've observed some advanced variations in country congresses in >Australia. Doubtless the old chestnut of asking about a 1-minor opening >is well-known: > >"Does 1C show clubs?" - then pass shows a 1C overcall >"Does 1C show clubs?" - then double shows a good 1C overcall >"Does 1C show clubs?" - then 2C shows a rock with a club suit I made a stupid call at my local club a week or so ago. Qxx K8xxxx Jxx x P 1C ? Naturally I bid 3H at Amber [v v v]. P 1C 3H X P P ? Now what? Oh, I forgot to mention one small detail: LHO asked partner before her double: "Is 3H a real bid?" Partner [a pickup novice] had no idea what she was talking about. I stupidly passed and have been kicking myself ever since. Since LHO has shown at least a good five-card suit by her question [if not the six-card suit she actually had] I should have tried 3S. Not only does 3Sx only go for 500 [and 3Hx went for 1100] but I reckon no-one would have doubled it. Damn. Damn. Damn. -- 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 Sep 29 10:24:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8T0OB804073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:24:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8T0Nxt04057 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:24:00 +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 13enxr-000HSK-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 00:23:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 00:11:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht References: <003501c0276c$83227a80$97d436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <020801c02802$eee059e0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> <005501c0296d$aa344420$0b00000a@mike> In-Reply-To: <005501c0296d$aa344420$0b00000a@mike> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Mike Dodson wrote: >From: "David Stevenson" >To: >Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 6:23 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht >David Stevenson wrote: >> Marvin L. French wrote: >> >Peter Gill wrote: >> > >> >> David Stevenson wrote: >> >> > ... [snip] ... Kit Woolsey. He thought I should have stressed >> >that >> >> >some auctions are known to be tempo-sensitive and it is important >> >> >to try to randomise the tempo with those auctions particularly. >> >> >> >Maintaining a slower but steady tempo in such "known" situations would >> >be better, wouldn't it? >> > >> >Randomizing tempo is impossible, because there are times when a pair >> >*must* take more than whatever minimum time is included in the random >> >tempos. That makes slower tempo more likely to reflect a problem, and >> >faster tempo less likely, destroying randomness. >> >> But at least "more likely" is better than "always". If the tray comes >> back after 45 seconds, and you know this means either someone thought or >> someone held on to the tray, that is better surely than knowing it means >> someone thought. >> >Is this really true? If randomized tempo means there is no UI, than its >better for the players but "more likely" still leaves the player to deal >with L73 restrictions. Worse, must deal with them even when the tempo break >had nothing to do with the hand. The burden on the player to "carefully >avoid taking advantage" occurs more often and sometimes needlessly. Randomized tempo means effectively no UI, otherwise I agree the whole thing would be pointless! -- 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 Sep 29 10:24:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8T0OTr04088 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:24:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8T0OAt04075 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:24:13 +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 13eny7-000HSJ-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 00:24:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 00:42:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Untimely question References: <005801c027ed$a9bf68c0$c4dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <005801c027ed$a9bf68c0$c4dd36cb@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: >SKIP NEXT PARAGRAPH IF SIDETRACKS ANNOY YOU: >There was an Appeal at Maastricht where from oceans away, >dummy's foreign language question looks highly likely to have >been along the lines of "hurry up and cash your spade winners". >Less likely to be "swear word, hurry up" (the use of the swear >word provides some evidence of why on earth the player used >a foreign language). Much much less likely to be just simply >"hurry up". I do not know if that Appeal decision was meant to >be a precedent that in a case such as Anne's there is no UI as >long as the player later says so, but it does seem possible. Note >that in the foreign language case, the AC report does not provide >any evidence as to which of these three forms the "hurry up" >question took, i.e. dummy never denied saying that the spades >are high, so I guess that nowadays one tends to accept >unquestioningly the innocent explanation of the action unless >evidence suggests otherwise. :) Cr^H^Hrubbish. If you think the AC got it wrong when you who know everything then just say so, but not in this pontifical manner. Leave pontificating to Burn, Marv, Grattan and myself: we do it better. An AC made a judgement. Quoting it for totally dissimilar situations based on an assumption that the decision was wrong without knowing why is less than helpful. -- 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 Sep 29 10:24:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8T0OR804087 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:24:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8T0OAt04076 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:24:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13eny5-000P7a-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 00:24:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 00:38:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke References: <001301c028be$4817f200$1113f7a5@oemcomputer> <002501c028c7$4eaae740$4f5908c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <002501c028c7$4eaae740$4f5908c3@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: Craig Senior >> Life was very simple when a revoke was a two trick penalty, period. In a >> perhaps misguided attempt to improve equity, we came up with the present >> complex law >+=+ Would anyone buy "restore equity and apply >a procedural penalty"? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ No. Absolutely not. That would make the absurdity of L25B pale into insignificance. That would be the most dreadful decision that the WBFLC could ever make. Today I met someone who showed me proudly his brand new copy of Duplicate Rules Simplified [advt] by John Rumbelow and David Stevenson. He is about to direct in China [!!] and is taking that instead of a Law book! OK, I did not encourage him [much ] but the point is that when directing in a club there are only a few rules you ever have to know, to be honest, except in very rare situations. You need to be able to handle LOOTs, COOTs, insufficient bids, wrong numbers of cards, scoring problems - and revokes. That's it. That is what your basic club TD has to do. Ok, if something complicated comes along he will have to do his best, but that is the staple diet. And there are **no** judgement rulings in there!! Yes, I know there can be, but surely you know what I mean. A simple club TD can get along without more than three judgement rulings a year, and for them he gives me a bell, or Jens or Laurie or ... [depending on which country he is in]. So the one thing the WBFLC **must not** do is to make one of the basics into a judgement decision. They must not make revokes a judgement decision. They *must* have an automatic penalty for a revoke. Ton. Grattan. Joan. Everyone. Please. Remember the club 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 Fri Sep 29 10:24:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8T0O5k04065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:24:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8T0Nut04055 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:23:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13enxp-000HSJ-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 00:23:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 00:04:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] What are the logical alternatives here? 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 Adam Wildavsky wrote: >At 1:09 AM -0400 9/25/00, Adam Wildavsky should have written: >>EW Vul, Matchpoints >> >>W N E S >> P 2H 2H is weak and could be a 5 card suit >>P P 3C P >>3H X P P 3H asks for a heart stop and pass denies one >>3S P 3N P 3N shows a partial heart stop, typically Qx or Jxx >> >>West holds: >> >>AKQJ >>843 >>A65 >>876 >> >>Which are his logical alternatives? > >Here are the results from our all-star panel: > >Name P 4C 4H 4S 5C XX > >Tim Goodwin x x >Ron Johnson x x >Adam Beneschan x x x x >Chris Pisarra x >Roger Pewick x >Richard Hills x x x >Peter Newman x x x x >A. L. Edwards x >Michael Kopera x >David Stevenson x x x x x > >Total 4 10 2 5 2 1 > >Two of the four in the Pass column thought Pass was barely a LA, but >they said they could have gone either way. > >I don't think majority should rule here. In my experience if even one >committee member considers an action a LA then it likely is a LA. > >Here's more of the tale. East hesitated before bidding 3NT. All >parties concede that West had UI. The next question is: What does the >UI demonstrably suggest? Usually the UI would suggest pulling rather >than sitting with a marginal hand, but here most of those who counted >Pass a LA were hoping for heart blockage. > >So, part two of the question, especially for those who agree that Pass is a LA: > >Which action(s) does UI demonstrably suggest? Or, what kind of hand >would have trouble bidding 3N in tempo here? A hand that either has an alternative action or a hand which can see no sensible action whatever. For example a 3=3=1=6, maybe with 10xx in hearts. But it certainly does suggest not passing 3NT. -- 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 Sep 29 10:42:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8T0gSQ04137 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:42:28 +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-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 e8T0gMt04133 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:42:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13eoFl-000BID-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 01:42:18 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 01:41:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Squeeze Appeal References: <4.3.2.7.0.20000926043239.00a99f00@popmail.tcp.co.uk> <002301c0284b$c02e6c60$f8307bd5@D457300> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >David Burn wrote: >>DWS wrote: >> >>> Just to be accurate the ruling was that N/S was assigned a score >>of >>> 70% of 6NT=, NS +1430 >> >>Er... just to be what? > > Accurate. > Ahem! David. Just what is the score for 6NT? We will be demanding a full-blown grovel. -- John (MadDog) Probst "I agree, for what phone before fax to: 451 Mile End Road that's worth." 020 8980 4947 London E3 4PA DWS, 19/09/00 john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 29 10:48:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8T0mYT04150 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:48:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8T0mRt04146 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:48:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivetaa.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.117.74]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA22591 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 20:48:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000928204817.0133b668@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 20:48:17 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] Untimely question In-Reply-To: References: <00cb01c0281a$c9466b30$3c03ac89@newmanhome> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:21 AM 9/29/2000 +0100, David S wrote: > I made a stupid call at my local club a week or so ago. > > Qxx > K8xxxx > Jxx > x > > P 1C ? > > Naturally I bid 3H at Amber [v v v]. > > P 1C 3H X > P P ? > > Now what? > > Oh, I forgot to mention one small detail: LHO asked partner before her >double: "Is 3H a real bid?" This is certainly an excellent example of an inappropriate question. It is inappropriate in its form, which automatically suggests a skepticism about the meaning of the call that is a[t tp be base upon a fistful of hearts, and it is inappropriate by its very position in the auction. When a question is asked about a relatively common, non-alerted bid (and certainly this qualifies), it conveys this kind of information. I'm sure that David did not mean to confuse this example with the one in the original thread, which concerned an alerted bid that we all understand can have a wide range of meanings. _Regardless of his intentions with respect to any of the possbile meanings_, a good player will request an explanation for such a bid, unless he suspects that doing so would be of more value to the opponents. Such a request, properly phrased, cannot be assumed to convey any information whatsoever, other than the obvious truism that bidding and play are generally easier when you know what the opponents' bids and plays are intended to communicate. 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 Sep 29 11:22:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8T1LlM04177 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 11:21:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8T1Lft04173 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 11:21:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.24]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 18:21:56 -0700 Message-ID: <009801c029b3$785205a0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <003501c0276c$83227a80$97d436cb@gillp.bigpond.com><020801c02802$eee059e0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> <005501c0296d$aa344420$0b00000a@mike> Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 18:16:08 -0700 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 Mike Dodson wrote: > On the other hand, if randomized tempo means I and my opponents must more > often distort our actions in case this pause might be partner's hesitation > than good bridge is the loser. > > Finally, depending on humans to intentionally do anything random is an > oxymoron. Do we want to make rulings along the lines of: I chose a > suboptimal bid because I thought I may have UI from partner when in fact it > was a "random tempo variation" from an opponent and HE COULD OF KNOWN it > would damage me in this tempo sensitive auction. > If random tempo is really necessary, why not let a monitor (person, not a CRT) establish the tempo? Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, 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 Fri Sep 29 14:17:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8T4GRh04298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 14:16:27 +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 e8T4GDt04288 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 14:16:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.28] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13erak-000MbF-00; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 05:16:10 +0100 Message-ID: <012a01c029cc$29d70b00$1c5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" , References: <4.3.2.7.0.20000926043239.00a99f00@popmail.tcp.co.uk><002301c0284b$c02e6c60$f8307bd5@D457300> Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Squeeze Appeal Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 05:11:41 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 1:41 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Squeeze Appeal > > > Ahem! David. Just what is the score for 6NT? We will be demanding a > full-blown grovel. > -- +=+ Drat that cat. +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 29 14:17:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8T4GNv04296 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 14:16:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8T4GAt04278 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 14:16:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.28] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13erag-000MbF-00; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 05:16:06 +0100 Message-ID: <012701c029cc$275198a0$1c5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <005801c027ed$a9bf68c0$c4dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Untimely question Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 04:51:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 12:42 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Untimely question ---------------- \x/ ---------------- > > If you think the AC got it wrong when you who know everything then > just say so, but not in this pontifical manner. Leave pontificating to > Burn, Marv, Grattan and myself: we do it better. > > An AC made a judgement. Quoting it for totally dissimilar situations > based on an assumption that the decision was wrong without knowing why > is less than helpful. > +=+ Just to pontificate...... This is exactly the kind of decision where you need to sit and hear the evidence, not merely read a summary of a hearing, before you can argue about what is 'right' and 'wrong'. Far more valuable simply to raise questions than to provide answers. The commentators who come forward with questions are usually more interesting than those who 'know' answers - except in mechanical applications of law to given 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 Fri Sep 29 14:17:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8T4GLI04295 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 14:16:21 +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 e8T4G8t04277 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 14:16:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.28] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13erae-000MbF-00; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 05:16:05 +0100 Message-ID: <012601c029cc$266fc420$1c5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <001301c028be$4817f200$1113f7a5@oemcomputer><002501c028c7$4eaae740$4f5908c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 04:41:22 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 12:38 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke > > So the one thing the WBFLC **must not** do is to make one of the > basics into a judgement decision. They must not make revokes a > judgement decision. They *must* have an automatic penalty for a revoke. > > Ton. Grattan. Joan. Everyone. Please. > > Remember the club TD! > +=+ I would not be proposing it! Far too many other things to look at. But I thought I might get someone huffing and puffing. ~ 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 Sep 29 14:17:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8T4GPJ04297 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 14:16:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8T4GCt04284 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 14:16:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.28] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13erah-000MbF-00; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 05:16:07 +0100 Message-ID: <012801c029cc$28336d20$1c5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , "BLML" References: <003501c0276c$83227a80$97d436cb@gillp.bigpond.com><020801c02802$eee059e0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> <005501c0296d$aa344420$0b00000a@mike> <009801c029b3$785205a0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 05:00:22 +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: BLML Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 2:16 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht > > Mike Dodson wrote: > > > > > Finally, depending on humans to intentionally do > > anything random is an oxymoron. > +=+ I have made a note for the jurisprudence that 'random' is not quite the right word. The phrase needs to be about 'irregularity' of tempo. For the rest, where the CoP now exists as regulation its view is that the benefits of irregular tray tempo exceed the disadvantages. ~ 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 Sep 29 14:30:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8T4U7f04330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 14:30:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8T4U3t04326 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 14:30:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot28.domain6.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id na001495 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 14:29:21 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-006-p-217-136.tmns.net.au ([203.54.217.136]) by mail6.bigpond.com (Claudes-Squeaky-MailRouter V2.9c 11/648721); 29 Sep 2000 14:29:19 Message-ID: <01bb01c02971$ca723720$88d936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Alerts Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 02:30:56 +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 Did any club ever try out Truebridge? Peter Gill. Marv French wrote: >Several years ago I concocted a baseline system for novice >duplicate players, called "Truebridge." It did away with >conventions, other than a very few that seemed indispensable >for a playable system (or are so nearly universal that even >novices would demand them), with just a few options to be >discussed with partner. The conventions: > >Artificial strong 2C opening >Takeout doubles of opening suit bids, through ? >Stayman 2C/3C >Blackwood 4NT (would like to have omitted that!) >Gerber opposite a notrump bid (ditto) >Artificial 2NT or ranking suit response to any two-level opening > ....... -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 29 18:07:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8T86iS04427 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 18:06:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8T86ct04423 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 18:06:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.24]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 01:06:51 -0700 Message-ID: <014101c029ec$09203420$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <01bb01c02971$ca723720$88d936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Alerts Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 01:05:24 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill asked: > Did any club ever try out Truebridge? No. It never saw the light of day, although I sent a few versions of it to interested RGBers. A similar game is played by a majority of duplicate players here in San Diego, but they are playing in clubs unaffiliated with the ACBL. It is also played by nearly all the social bridge players of my acquaintance. The only conventions played by most are Blackwood, takeout doubles, and Stayman, although a considerable number have adopted an artificial strong 2C to go along with weak two bids. There are no convention cards, and of course no Alerts. Unfortunately they have learned about five-card majors, and think that is a great idea. For them especially, it's not. They can handle the five-card majors all right, but not the three-card minors. They love the game, and have a lot of fun playing it. Maybe they should form a league of their own. Marv > > Marv French wrote: > >Several years ago I concocted a baseline system for novice > >duplicate players, called "Truebridge." It did away with > >conventions, other than a very few that seemed indispensable > >for a playable system (or are so nearly universal that even > >novices would demand them), with just a few options to be > >discussed with partner. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 29 18:52:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8T8piK04457 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 18:51:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8T8pbt04453 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 18:51:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d148.iae.nl [212.61.3.148]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 9412B20F64 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:51:31 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <003401c029f2$a3f2d9c0$65033dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] How to treat third hand opening agreements. Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:46:24 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0025_01C02A02.83233E00" 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_0025_01C02A02.83233E00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Board 12 W/NS pairs contest, experienced pairs for years, regional top = level J 7 4 Q 10 8 3 9 4 2 A K 10 10 6 2 8 5 3 A J 5 6 2 J 7 6 Q 10 5 3 Q 6 5 2 9 8 7 4 A K Q 9 K 9 7 4 A K 8 J 3=20 W N E S pass pass 1D X pass CC EW: third hand bid can be weak ( not more than that) Questions: 1a Is the third hand agreement a BSC? 1b Is 1D a psyche? 1c Other? 2a Is wests pass understanding? West says:" My partner have never done = that before." 2b Would 1NT be logical in a pair contest, more barrage, preemptive = against vulnerable? The TD knows that west is not so very particular in order "to obtain a = good result": in the past west violated intentionally twice a convention = creating a BSC and yielding profit. West has been given a warning for = that. Your reactions please. ------=_NextPart_000_0025_01C02A02.83233E00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Board 12 W/NS pairs contest, experienced pairs for years, regional = top=20 level

           &nbs= p;         =20 J 7 4

           &nbs= p;       =20 Q 10 8 3

           &nbs= p;        =20 9 4 2

           &nbs= p;        =20 A K 10

10 6=20 2            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;     =20 8 5 3

A J=20 5            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;         6=20 2

J 7=20 6            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;          Q=20 10 5 3

Q 6 5=20 2            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;     =20 9 8 7 4

           &nbs= p;            = ;=20 A K Q 9

           &nbs= p;            = ;  K=20 9 7 4

           &nbs= p;            = ; =20 A K 8

           &nbs= p;            = ;   J=20 3

W           =20 N            =   =20 = E            =  =20 S

pass    =20 pass          =20 1D            = ; =20 X

pass

CC EW: third hand bid can be weak ( not more than that)

Questions:

1a Is the third hand agreement a BSC?

1b Is 1D a psyche?

1c Other?

2a Is wests pass understanding? West says:" My partner have never = done that=20 before."

2b Would 1NT be logical in a pair contest, more barrage, preemptive = against=20 vulnerable?

The TD knows that west is not so very particular in order "to obtain = a good=20 result": in the past west violated intentionally twice a convention = creating a=20 BSC and yielding profit. West has been given a warning for that.

Your reactions please.

 

------=_NextPart_000_0025_01C02A02.83233E00-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 29 20:45:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8TAirJ04513 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 20:44:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8TAimt04509 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 20:44:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([210.55.45.183]) by mta5-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20000929104643.MZGO2245303.mta5-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 22:46:43 +1200 Message-ID: <01d001c02a01$6729cb20$b72d37d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "bridge-laws" References: <003401c029f2$a3f2d9c0$65033dd4@default> Subject: Re: [BLML] How to treat third hand opening agreements. Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 22:35:54 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01BF_01C02A65.A0D5BF00" 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_01BF_01C02A65.A0D5BF00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The agreement is not a convention therefore it can not be a BSC. Wayne=20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Ben Schelen=20 To: bridge-laws=20 Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 8:46 PM Subject: [BLML] How to treat third hand opening agreements. Board 12 W/NS pairs contest, experienced pairs for years, regional top = level J 7 4 Q 10 8 3 9 4 2 A K 10 10 6 2 8 5 3 A J 5 6 2 J 7 6 Q 10 5 3 Q 6 5 2 9 8 7 4 A K Q 9 K 9 7 4 A K 8 J 3=20 W N E S pass pass 1D X pass CC EW: third hand bid can be weak ( not more than that) Questions: 1a Is the third hand agreement a BSC? 1b Is 1D a psyche? 1c Other? 2a Is wests pass understanding? West says:" My partner have never done = that before." 2b Would 1NT be logical in a pair contest, more barrage, preemptive = against vulnerable? The TD knows that west is not so very particular in order "to obtain a = good result": in the past west violated intentionally twice a convention = creating a BSC and yielding profit. West has been given a warning for = that. Your reactions please. ------=_NextPart_000_01BF_01C02A65.A0D5BF00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The agreement is not a = convention therefore=20 it can not be a BSC.
 
 
Wayne 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Ben = Schelen=20
To: bridge-laws
Sent: Friday, September 29, = 2000 8:46=20 PM
Subject: [BLML] How to treat = third hand=20 opening agreements.

Board 12 W/NS pairs contest, experienced pairs for years, regional = top=20 level

=

           &nbs= p;         =20 J 7 4

=

           &nbs= p;       =20 Q 10 8 3

=

           &nbs= p;        =20 9 4 2

=

           &nbs= p;        =20 A K 10

10 6=20 = 2            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;     =20 8 5 3

A J=20 = 5            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;         6=20 2

J 7=20 = 6            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;          Q=20 10 5 3

Q 6 5=20 = 2            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;     =20 9 8 7 4

=

           &nbs= p;            = ;=20 A K Q 9

=

           &nbs= p;            = ;  K=20 9 7 4

=

           &nbs= p;            = ; =20 A K 8

=

           &nbs= p;            = ;   J=20 3

W            = = N            =   =20 = E            =  =20 S

pass    =20 pass          =20 = 1D            = ;=20 X

pass

CC EW: third hand bid can be weak ( not more than that)

Questions:

1a Is the third hand agreement a BSC?

1b Is 1D a psyche?

1c Other?

2a Is wests pass understanding? West says:" My partner have never = done that=20 before."

2b Would 1NT be logical in a pair contest, more barrage, preemptive = against=20 vulnerable?

The TD knows that west is not so very particular in order "to = obtain a good=20 result": in the past west violated intentionally twice a convention = creating a=20 BSC and yielding profit. West has been given a warning for that.

Your reactions please.

 

------=_NextPart_000_01BF_01C02A65.A0D5BF00-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 29 21:37:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8TBaS904538 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 21:36:28 +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-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 e8TBaKt04534 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 21:36:20 +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 13eySc-000Hoy-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 11:36:16 +0000 Message-ID: <10uzdFAVe$05EwIc@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 02:59:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Squeeze Appeal References: <4.3.2.7.0.20000926043239.00a99f00@popmail.tcp.co.uk> <002301c0284b$c02e6c60$f8307bd5@D457300> 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 >>David Burn wrote: >>>DWS wrote: >>> >>>> Just to be accurate the ruling was that N/S was assigned a score >>>of >>>> 70% of 6NT=, NS +1430 >>> >>>Er... just to be what? >> >> Accurate. >> >Ahem! David. Just what is the score for 6NT? We will be demanding a >full-blown grovel. Oh, I just thought Burn was being Burn. Now I see. Sorry, all. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 29 22:25:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8TCOgV04625 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 22:24:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8TCOXt04621 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 22:24:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.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 e8TCOSQ17808 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 08:24:29 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000929080523.00ab7730@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, 29 Sep 2000 08:26:09 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht In-Reply-To: <39D198BB.1361807C@mindspring.com> References: <003f01c027e9$bec022e0$c4dd36cb@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 02:50 AM 9/27/00, John wrote: >Peter Gill wrote: > > >[Issue of randomizing time gaps in passing bidding tray through the >screen] > > > > I don't think so. There are disadvantages. The next paragraph > > deals with a disadvantage for the ethical pair, and the following > > two paragraphs deal with advantages of the new guideline for > > an unethical or unscrupulous pair. > > > > A disadvantage is that a highly ethical pair, who always bid in > > tempo even after high level preempts, are disadvantaged. > >Whoa! It is not unethical to bid out of tempo. > > > In the old environment, they could infer that the hesitation of > > their opponent meant something. Now they can't infer anything > > from the opponents' tempo, i.e. they are now worse off despite > > their proper application of the Laws. > >What law? Also, half the partnership isn't worse off. > >[snip] > > > That doesn't mean that the minority view is not worth stating - > > imagine if, in 2001 or 2002 when nefarious pairs have had time > > to consider the implications of this new guideline, a pair have > > come up with a way to profit by randomising the tempo to a set > > pattern (cf today's post by Richard Hills in the thread Untimely > > Question), using their watches to match the number of seconds > > to certain meanings. > >This seems unlikely. I think that randomizing, while an imperfect >solution, can assist in limiting UI problems and, as such, is desirable. Perhaps what's bothering Peter is the enthusiasm with which we currently embrace solutions to "the UI problem" without giving due thought to their costs. One could argue that the effort to make tempo breaks on the other side of the screen invisible has the benefit of depriving the tempo-breaker's partner of UI, and the simultaneous cost of depriving his partner's screenmate of AI. One could then debate where the cost-benefit balance lies. But one could also argue we have L16A to deal with the UI (deterring or coping with any infractions -- the transmission of the UI is not in itself an infraction), whereas we have no mechanism available to offset the consequences of the loss of AI. Ultimately, it should come down to a debate between those who believe that F2F bridge (at least at the high levels) should strive to emulate bridge played on computers and those who believe that table feel is an inherent part of the game and steps to eliminate it move the game in the wrong direction. In an ideal world, we would have magic screens that would allow each player at the table to observe both his opponents while preventing him from observing his partner. Since we have only mundane screens, we should try to use them in a way that best emulates that ideal. 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 Sep 29 22:46:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8TCjgD04665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 22:45:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8TCjat04661 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 22:45:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.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 e8TCjWQ18934 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 08:45:32 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000929084441.00ab4790@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, 29 Sep 2000 08:47:13 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke In-Reply-To: <002501c028c7$4eaae740$4f5908c3@dodona> References: <001301c028be$4817f200$1113f7a5@oemcomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:56 PM 9/27/00, Grattan wrote: >+=+ Would anyone buy "restore equity and apply >a procedural penalty"? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Not if the penalty were left unspecified. It should be "restore equity and apply the following penalty:...", lest we make things more complicated rather than less. 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 Sep 29 22:46:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8TCkHZ04677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 22:46:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8TCk6t04669 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 22:46:11 +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 OAA06461; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 14:44:24 +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 OAA01497; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 14:45:58 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000929145600.007e3e50@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 14:56:00 +0200 To: "Ben Schelen" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] How to treat third hand opening agreements. In-Reply-To: <003401c029f2$a3f2d9c0$65033dd4@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:46 29/09/00 +0200, you wrote: J 7 4 Q 10 8 3 9 4 2 A K 10 10 6 2 8 5 3 A J 5 6 2 J 7 6 Q 10 5 3 Q 6 5 2 9 8 7 4 A K Q 9 K 9 7 4 A K 8 J 3 > W N E S > pass pass 1D X > pass > CC EW: third hand bid can be weak ( not more than that) AG : if so stated, I would understand it as 'might go below rule of 18', not as 'flat 2-count'. > 1a Is the third hand agreement a BSC? AG : how could I know ? > 1b Is 1D a psyche? > 1c Other? AG : no. Either it is the pair's habit, and should have been written on their card as such (and possibly pre-alertable), or it is a psyche. I can see no other possibility. 2a Is wests pass understanding? West says:" My partner have never done that before." AG : you don't necesarily have to believe him. 2b Would 1NT be logical in a pair contest, more barrage, preemptive against vulnerable? AG : of course it would. Hence my response to 2A : this is sound evidence that East *had indeed* done this before ; else West would probably have bid 1NT. > The TD knows that west is not so very particular in order "to obtain a good result": in the past west violated intentionally twice a convention creating a BSC and yielding profit. West has been given a warning for that. AG : this does not necessarily demonstrate they did it once again; But West's non-bid is either taking into account the fact that partner might have a Yarborough, or fielding a psyche. So I think that there could have been more than a warning. Especially if E/W have done strange things before (*now* you are allowed to take this into account) 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 Sep 29 22:56:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8TCu5b04689 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 22:56:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8TCtxt04685 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 22:56:00 +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 e8TDKgT45331 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 09:20:43 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000929085021.00a9a200@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, 29 Sep 2000 08:57:36 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] ACBL Alerts In-Reply-To: <002901c028c5$c0007e20$23c3e080@isi.com> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000925163128.00b4e860@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:58 PM 9/27/00, Richard wrote: > > Personally, I belive both schools are correct; I firmly > > reject the notion that an unalerted bid must have only one specific > > meaning. IMO, alerts should be reserved (as was originally > > intended) for meanings of calls that (modal or LCD) players do not > > expect, rather than for any they do not themselves choose to > > employ. > >And here we have the crux of the matter. > >There are a variety of different metrics that can be used to evaluate >any potential alert system. >- From my perspective, there are two primary metrics that I consider: >The first is the simplicity of the system. >The second is the efficiency of the system. > >I argue that the failure to alert a call should convey a very >specific meaning. >The failure to alert a call means that this call conforms to Standard >American Purple Card. >As an specific example, if Standard American Purple Card were based >on 5 card majors, than I believe that players should alert a 4 card >major opening. > >Eric argues that the failure to alert a call should convey a less >specific meaning. >The failure to alert a call means that the call belongs to some set >of "normally expected" bids. >Forgive me for putting words in Eric's mouth, but I believe that he >would consider a 4 card majors to be considered "normally expected". >He would probably consider a canape style 1M opening like Blue Club >to be unusual enough to warrant an alert. > >It occurs to me that if we compare the approaches, their efficiency >is directly related variance in bidding systems being used. > >Consider a situation where the vast majority of individual pairs >adopt a wide variety of bidding systems. In this case, an extremely >small percentage of the bids being made would conform to Standard >American Purple Card. If the alert structure that I proposed were >being used in this situation, individual pairs would be forced to >alert nearly all of their bids. As a result, the act of alerting >itself would essentially be noise in the system. (I would argue that >under the British alert structure, the alert of a 2C bid in the >sequence 1N - (P) - 2C conveys virtually no information) > >In contrast, consider a situation where approximately 50% of the >calls during the course of a game conform to the Standard American >Purple Card system. > >I would argue that the alert system that Eric proposes is more >appropriate in the first example. The looser alert criteria would >decrease the frequency of the alert and increase its discriminating >power. > >The structure that I propose would work better in the second case. >(For anyone who cares, a binary flag like an alert has the most >discriminating power if it occurs 50% of the time) > >Simply put, if the efficiency of an alert structure is being used as >a metric, then the design of an optimal structure must consider the >distribution of bidding methods in use. > >I don't suppose anyone anyone has every seen a survey describing the >distribution of bidding methods in use in particular environments? An excellent analysis. One sees immediately is that it helps explain what has happened in the ACBL. When alerts were first introduced, North American bridge was a lot closer to Richard's second situation than it is now, and the new alert procedure was widely understood and accepted. But over the decades we have moved a lot closer to the first situation, while the alert procedure has become a source of confusion and unpopular. Richard is right that if half the players played a single system, identical in every respect, it would make some sense to use it as a baseline system for an alert procedure. But I very much doubt that that's the case in any jurisdiction today. 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 Sep 29 23:09:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8TD9Db04714 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 23:09:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8TD96t04710 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 23:09:07 +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 FAA18344 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 05:58:31 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard Willey" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: RE: [BLML] ACBL Alerts Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 09:12:21 -0400 Message-ID: <000e01c02a16$e6fc10a0$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: <4.3.2.7.1.20000929085021.00a9a200@127.0.0.1> 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 > Richard is right that if half the players played a single > system, identical > in every respect, it would make some sense to use it as a > baseline system > for an alert procedure. But I very much doubt that that's > the case in any > jurisdiction today. It is not necessary that 50% of the players "played a single system, identical in every aspect". Rather, you hope to find a situtation where 50% of all calls made conformed to the alert standard. For example, two pairs might chose to adopt a very different opening range for 1NT. Pair 1 uses a 16 - 18 HCP 1NT PAir 2 uses a 12 - 14 HCP 1NT However, both pairs might chose to use the same response structure. It is entirely possible that one of the initial 1N openings might require an alert, however, not of the follow-up bids would. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOdSVNLFdMFbo8dHHEQJspgCgis4x9bx3f7OoqxWI//j1/nRoGkQAoLfP +ZNF5VvI82jT7yIHpx2rg4QE =yneN -----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 Sep 30 00:14:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8TEEDg04762 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 00:14:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8TEE7t04758 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 00:14:08 +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 KAA19389; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:14:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA019196841; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:14:01 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:14:00 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: RE: [BLML] ACBL Alerts From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, mfrench1@san.rr.com Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin French wrote: From my experience teaching and coaching new players I would suggest: Artificial strong 2C opening (22+ or 1 trick short to game) Weak 2 and 3 openings Takeout X through 4H Stayman 2C/3C Blackwood 4NT and Gerber (on direct NT opening only) After some time you may add Neg X through 2S Jacoby transfers on 1NT and 2NT 2S on 1NT transfering to 3C (weak C or D hands) We have a lot of novices here playing this stuff for many years in clubs and sectionals and having no problems. Many play on-line bridge. Playing 5CM, they just add Michael and Unusual 2NT and can easily play with most people there just saying "SAYC". I know... SAYC have more stuff, but so what. It is simple, they have fun and can practice bridge as they want. I do not like SAYC more than you and should prefer something else, but it is there and most poeple can play it on the net... I think it is becoming a "de facto" standard, like it or not. If ACBL wants something else, somebody there should act as fast as possible. 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 Sat Sep 30 00:34:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8TEYCR04778 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 00:34:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8TEY4t04774 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 00:34:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from pd5s05a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.101.214] helo=pacific) by cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13f1DX-0008Hb-00; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 15:32:52 +0100 Message-ID: <000601c02a21$daaf9000$d66593c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Wayne Burrows" , "bridge-laws" References: <003401c029f2$a3f2d9c0$65033dd4@default> <01d001c02a01$6729cb20$b72d37d2@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] How to treat third hand opening agreements. Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 14:00:53 +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<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> ----- Original Message ----- From: Wayne Burrows To: bridge-laws Sent: 29 September 2000 11:35 Subject: Re: [BLML] How to treat third hand opening agreements. The agreement is not a convention therefore it can not be a BSC. Wayne --------------- +=+ And what is more, bs does not apply to opening bids at the level of one. However, if the agreement is found to apply to hands of this 'strength' then it is subject to regulation under Law 40D. This could be an explicit agreement or one arising from partnership experience. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: Ben Schelen To: bridge-laws Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 8:46 PM Subject: [BLML] How to treat third hand opening agreements. Board 12 W/NS pairs contest, experienced pairs for years, regional top level J 7 4 Q 10 8 3 9 4 2 A K 10 10 6 2 8 5 3 A J 5 6 2 J 7 6 Q 10 5 3 Q 6 5 2 9 8 7 4 A K Q 9 K 9 7 4 A K 8 J 3 W N E S pass pass 1D X pass CC EW: third hand bid can be weak ( not more than that) Questions: 1a Is the third hand agreement a BSC? 1b Is 1D a psyche? 1c Other? 2a Is wests pass understanding? West says:" My partner have never done that before." 2b Would 1NT be logical in a pair contest, more barrage, preemptive against vulnerable? The TD knows that west is not so very particular in order "to obtain a good result": in the past west violated intentionally twice a convention creating a BSC and yielding profit. West has been given a warning for that. Your reactions please. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 30 01:52:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8TFpRE04823 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 01:51:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8TFpLt04819 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 01:51:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from freenet10.carleton.ca (freenet10 [134.117.136.30]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/NCF_f1_v3.00) with ESMTP id LAA21287 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 11:51:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/NCF-Sun-Client) id LAA10509; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 11:51:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 11:51:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200009291551.LAA10509@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Mind your Ps and Qs Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ACBLScore, the program used in the ACBL to score events, has a function called P and Q. P is used when a director assigns an adjusted score (for example, changes a score from +400 to -50) but wants to protect the players' A+ (the NOs get -50 or A+, whichever is better). Q does the opposite (the Os get -50 or A-, whichever is worse). A few questions: 1) is this legal? (just because the program permits this does not mean it's legal--this IS the ACBL :-)) 2) if it is legal, under what circumstances would it be used? Thanks! Tony (aka ac342) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 30 02:59:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8TGwVF04859 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 02:58:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8TGwNt04855 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 02:58:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA23879; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 09:58:19 -0700 Message-Id: <200009291658.JAA23879@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Mind your Ps and Qs In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 29 Sep 2000 11:51:07 PDT." <200009291551.LAA10509@freenet10.carleton.ca> Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 09:58:19 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tony Edwards wrote: > ACBLScore, the program used in the ACBL to score events, has a > function called P and Q. P is used when a director assigns an > adjusted score (for example, changes a score from +400 to -50) > but wants to protect the players' A+ (the NOs get -50 or A+, > whichever is better). Q does the opposite (the Os get -50 or > A-, whichever is worse). A few questions: > > 1) is this legal? (just because the program permits this does not mean > it's legal--this IS the ACBL :-)) It's legal, if you consider the computer to be an "Appeals Committee" and apply Law 12C3. As the President of the largest nation in the ACBL might say, it depends on what the definition of "committee" is. :) :) :) (Actually, this wouldn't even make it legal in the ACBL, since we've elected not to apply 12C3.) I don't think it's legal. According to L12C2, the non-offenders should get the most favorable result that was likely if the infraction had not occurred. If the most favorable likely result is still below-average for the non-offenders, that means that the offenders must have done something good (or the non-offenders must have done something wrong) *before* the infraction, and the Laws don't eliminate the consequences of this good (or bad) action. I don't understand why a director would want to protect a side's A+ when the side was, for bridge reasons, unlikely to get an A+. The above remarks apply to the P option; the argument against Q is similar (replace "likely" with "at all probable".) Lately, after reading some of the discussions on BLML, I've been wondering why the ACBL doesn't seem to understand or use L12C2, and I think I've figured it out. Here's my theory: When the WBF drafted the Laws, the ACBL set to work on creating an ACBL edition of the Laws; and the most important part of this process was to find all the redundant U's in the Laws and rip them out. In their enthusiasm to complete this task, sometimes they ripped too much and whole sentences, or even entire Laws, got accidentally ripped out. Note that the original L12C2 had two redundant U's in it (in the words "favorable" and "unfavorable"), and in their attempt to rip both of the U's out, the rippers undoubtedly got careless and ripped out L12C2 in its entirety. OK, maybe that's not what happened, but it makes more sense than any other explanation I can think of. P.S. Does ACBLScore have a function to assign a split score? It wouldn't greatly surprise me if it doesn't. -- 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 Sep 30 03:03:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8TH3aP04885 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 03:03:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8TH3Tt04881 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 03:03:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.24]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:01:01 -0700 Message-ID: <005901c02a37$08dddee0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <001301c028be$4817f200$1113f7a5@oemcomputer><002501c028c7$4eaae740$4f5908c3@dodona> <012601c029cc$266fc420$1c5908c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:02:19 -0700 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: David Stevenson wrote: > > > So the one thing the WBFLC **must not** do is to make one of the > > basics into a judgement decision. They must not make revokes a > > judgement decision. They *must* have an automatic penalty for a revoke. > > > > Ton. Grattan. Joan. Everyone. Please. > > > > Remember the club TD! > > > +=+ I would not be proposing it! Far too many > other things to look at. But I thought I might get > someone huffing and puffing. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >From my archives: +=+ One of the subjects for the major law review is a proposal that an established revoke shall be dealt with wholly by the principle in Law 64C, i.e. by the restoration of the lost equity ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Who is doing this proposing, I wonder? No doubt someone who sees that it is a logical follow-up to the "equity" principle embodied in L12C3. Marv mlfrench@writeme.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 Sep 30 03:44:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8THi7O04941 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 03:44:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stormy.ibl.bm (stormy.ibl.bm [199.172.192.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8THhxt04937; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 03:44:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from [199.172.230.221] by stormy.ibl.bm (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-65377U14500L13000S0V35) with SMTP id bm; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 14:43:52 -0300 Date: 29 Sep 2000 14:45:13 -0700 Message-ID: <-1241883827jrhind@ibl.bm> From: Jack Rhind Subject: Re: [BLML] Mind your Ps and Qs To: , , X-Mailer: QuickMail Pro 2.0.4 (Mac) X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: Jack Rhind Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-Ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id e8THi3t04938 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I had a situation in a tournament last year where a player thought that 2S was a transfer to D's. His partner did not alert and bid 2NT. The 2S bidder then corrected to 3D and they played there making 5. At no time during the play did declarer inform the NOS that he had made a bidding mistake, and therefore did not have spades. The NOS had a stack of spades and could certainly compete in the auction, but not to the 5 level. OS got a bad score for 3D since 5D is cold. I used this feature to ensure that declarer kept his bad result. My concern was that a couple of pairs going down in 6D could suddenly change the A-- to an A. Using that feature allows declarer to keep the result they earned but guards against it unexpectedly becoming a better result by poor scores elsewhere. Hope I have not been too confusing with this explanation. On Friday, September 29, 2000, ac342@freenet.carleton.ca wrote: >ACBLScore, the program used in the ACBL to score events, has a >function called P and Q. P is used when a director assigns an >adjusted score (for example, changes a score from +400 to -50) >but wants to protect the players' A+ (the NOs get -50 or A+, >whichever is better). Q does the opposite (the Os get -50 or >A-, whichever is worse). A few questions: > >1) is this legal? (just because the program permits this does not mean > it's legal--this IS the ACBL :-)) >2) if it is legal, under what circumstances would it be used? > Thanks! > Tony (aka ac342) >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Sep 30 03:53:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8THrDD04954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 03:53:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8THr7t04950 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 03:53:08 +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 KAA24600; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:53:01 -0700 Message-Id: <200009291753.KAA24600@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:02:19 PDT." <005901c02a37$08dddee0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:53:01 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin French wrote: > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > +=+ One of the subjects for the major law review is a > > proposal that an established revoke shall be dealt with > > wholly by the principle in Law 64C, i.e. by the > > restoration of the lost equity ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Who is doing this proposing, I wonder? No doubt someone who sees that > it is a logical follow-up to the "equity" principle embodied in L12C3. I don't know who made this particular proposal, but _The Bridge World_ has recently editorialized in favor of such a change. -- 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 Sep 30 04:02:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8TI22o04972 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 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 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 e8TI1ut04968 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 04:01:57 +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 OAA26588; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 14:01:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA090750511; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 14:01:52 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 14:01:50 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: RE: [BLML] Mind your Ps and Qs From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA To: adam@irvine.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam wrote: P.S. Does ACBLScore have a function to assign a split score? It wouldn't greatly surprise me if it doesn't. __________________________________________________________________ Indeed yes.... I had not notice these Ps qnd Qs until now... but use Ss (split score) for a long time... Laval Du Breuil -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 30 04:02:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8TI2ZM04978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 04:02:35 +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 e8TI2Tt04974 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 04:02:29 +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 <20000929180224.DGED24299.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 11:02:24 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] ACBL Alerts Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 11:03:16 -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: <4.3.2.7.1.20000929085021.00a9a200@127.0.0.1> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk If I were going to come up with a base system, I would use everything that is taught in Audrey Grant's three books plus everything in EasyBridge up to and including the Conventions course. That is the only formal instructional material that is out there (supported by ACBL) and what a large number (almost all?) of beginners are being taught these days. 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 Sep 30 04:08:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8TI85V05001 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 04:08:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8TI7ut04993 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 04:07:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13f4Zb-000876-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 18:07:52 +0000 Message-ID: <5P97HFCDpN15EwCp@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 19:06:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Mind your Ps and Qs References: <200009291551.LAA10509@freenet10.carleton.ca> In-Reply-To: <200009291551.LAA10509@freenet10.carleton.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <200009291551.LAA10509@freenet10.carleton.ca>, A. L. Edwards writes >ACBLScore, the program used in the ACBL to score events, has a >function called P and Q. P is used when a director assigns an >adjusted score (for example, changes a score from +400 to -50) >but wants to protect the players' A+ (the NOs get -50 or A+, >whichever is better). Q does the opposite (the Os get -50 or >A-, whichever is worse). A few questions: > >1) is this legal? (just because the program permits this does not mean > it's legal--this IS the ACBL :-)) Yes >2) if it is legal, under what circumstances would it be used? > Thanks! > Tony (aka ac342) >-- Whenever the opponents have used an illegal convention for example. DWS and I had one when we did out 79%. Our A+ was worth 79% -- John (MadDog) Probst "I agree, for what phone before fax to: 451 Mile End Road that's worth." 020 8980 4947 London E3 4PA DWS, 19/09/00 john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 30 04:08:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8TI86L05002 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 04:08:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8TI7ut04994 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 04:07:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13f4Zb-000875-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 18:07:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 19:03:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke References: <001301c028be$4817f200$1113f7a5@oemcomputer> <002501c028c7$4eaae740$4f5908c3@dodona> <4.3.2.7.1.20000929084441.00ab4790@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20000929084441.00ab4790@127.0.0.1> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <4.3.2.7.1.20000929084441.00ab4790@127.0.0.1>, Eric Landau writes >At 04:56 PM 9/27/00, Grattan wrote: > >>+=+ Would anyone buy "restore equity and apply >>a procedural penalty"? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >Not if the penalty were left unspecified. It should be "restore equity and >apply the following penalty:...", lest we make things more complicated >rather than less. > NN NN OOO ! NNN NN OO OO !!! NN N NN OO OO !!! NN N NN OO OO !!! NN N NN OO OO !!! NN N NN OO OO ! NN NNN OO OO NN NN OOO !!! -- John (MadDog) Probst "I agree, for what phone before fax to: 451 Mile End Road that's worth." 020 8980 4947 London E3 4PA DWS, 19/09/00 john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 30 04:16:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8TIGYN05026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 04:16:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8TIGRt05022 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 04:16:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8TBPRB02244; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 11:25:27 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca, ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards), bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Mind your Ps and Qs Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 11:17:43 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200009291551.LAA10509@freenet10.carleton.ca> In-Reply-To: <200009291551.LAA10509@freenet10.carleton.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00092911252703.02176@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, A. L. Edwards wrote: > ACBLScore, the program used in the ACBL to score events, has a > function called P and Q. P is used when a director assigns an > adjusted score (for example, changes a score from +400 to -50) > but wants to protect the players' A+ (the NOs get -50 or A+, > whichever is better). Q does the opposite (the Os get -50 or > A-, whichever is worse). A few questions: > > 1) is this legal? (just because the program permits this does not mean > it's legal--this IS the ACBL :-)) > 2) if it is legal, under what circumstances would it be used? > Thanks! > Tony (aka ac342) Whether this is legal depends on whether you believe that average-plus can be awarded on a deal with a bridge result. The BLML consensus is that it cannot be awarded; if you are adjusting a score and you are not sure of the result, you must choose the most favorably likely result and least favorable result that is at all probable, and assign these. But in practice, most directors who are not sure of the result will not do this. I had a hand on which the opponents bid on to 5D over my 4S after a hesitation; 5D was doubled and down one for +100. The director determined that 4S could have been beaten on best defense (which was not necessarily going to happen), and therefore he couldn't award us +620 (and certainly wouldn't award us -100). Instead, he awarded average-plus, but since our teammates were +100 for beating 5S, we got to keep our table result of +5 rather than being resduced to +3. If you do award average-plus when there is a bridge result, then it is proper to preotect the non-offenders to the extent of the bridge result; in the situation above, the director prevented us from losing two IMPs as a result of his adjustment. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 30 04:37:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8TIbGc05040 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 04:37:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8TIbAt05036 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 04:37:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA25415; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 11:37:06 -0700 Message-Id: <200009291837.LAA25415@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Mind your Ps and Qs In-reply-to: Your message of "29 Sep 2000 14:45:13 PDT." <-1241883827jrhind@ibl.bm> Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 11:37:06 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jack Rhind wrote: > I had a situation in a tournament last year where a player thought > that 2S was a transfer to D's. His partner did not alert and bid > 2NT. The 2S bidder then corrected to 3D and they played there making > 5. At no time during the play did declarer inform the NOS that he > had made a bidding mistake, and therefore did not have spades. The > NOS had a stack of spades and could certainly compete in the > auction, but not to the 5 level. OS got a bad score for 3D since 5D > is cold. I used this feature to ensure that declarer kept his bad > result. My concern was that a couple of pairs going down in 6D could > suddenly change the A-- to an A. Using that feature allows declarer > to keep the result they earned but guards against it unexpectedly > becoming a better result by poor scores elsewhere. This is what I was talking about---it seems to be a failure to understand and/or apply the Laws properly. If you think the NO's would have failed to push the opponents into 6D, then they were not damaged by the infraction; in fact, they benefited from it, because they didn't push the opponents into their cold game. No damage, no adjustment. On the other hand, if you think that pairs going down in 6D would have changed the poor score into an average, this can happen only if about half the pairs in the field get to 6D, and then 6D-1 becomes both a "likely" and an "at all probable" result for the offenders, so that's the score you should give them. There's no reason at all to consider an A- or "conditional A-" here. -- 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 Sep 30 05:03:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8TJ2CH05063 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 05:02:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8TJ25t05059 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 05:02:06 +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 e8TJ21c26169; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 20:02:01 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id e8TJ20210277; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 20:02:00 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 19:02:00 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 UAA14123; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 20:01:59 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id UAA18739; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 20:01:58 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 20:01:58 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200009291901.UAA18739@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, grabiner@math.la.asu.edu Subject: Re: [BLML] Mind your Ps and Qs X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > after a hesitation; 5D was doubled and down one for +100. The director > determined that 4S could have been beaten on best defense (which was > not necessarily going to happen), and therefore he couldn't award us > +620 (and certainly wouldn't award us -100). Instead, he awarded > average-plus, ... If the director determined that best defence wasn't necessarily going to happen, then 4S= is likely and he CAN (in the absence of L12C3) award +620. 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 Sat Sep 30 05:08:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8TJ7tU05075 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 05:07:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8TJ7nt05071 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 05:07:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.24]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 12:05:23 -0700 Message-ID: <008201c02a48$68cdbee0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <200009291551.LAA10509@freenet10.carleton.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Mind your Ps and Qs Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 12:05:43 -0700 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 From: "A. L. Edwards" > ACBLScore, the program used in the ACBL to score events, has a > function called P and Q. P is used when a director assigns an > adjusted score (for example, changes a score from +400 to -50) > but wants to protect the players' A+ (the NOs get -50 or A+, > whichever is better). Q does the opposite (the Os get -50 or > A-, whichever is worse). You mean +50 or A+ for the NOs. > A few questions: > > 1) is this legal? (just because the program permits this does not mean > it's legal--this IS the ACBL :-)) It is illegal. There is nothing in L12 to suggest such a thing. I call it a "mixed score," mixing L12C1 and L12C2. The computer program should be revised to eliminate this option. Rich Colker defended the practice to me several years ago, after I had some acid comments about such adjustments that were reported in the NABC casebooks. There was one case (#19) at San Francisco, one at Dallas (#16), and one in St. Louis (#30). (In all three cases it was the AC, not the TD, who used the mixed score adjustment.) However, I don't recall seeing examples in the casebooks for the last year or two. Perhaps the illegality has been recognized. Of course it may still be perpetrated in tournaments other than NABCs, or in non-appealed cases at NABCs. > 2) if it is legal, under what circumstances would it be used? It is not legal, but I can answer the last half. It is used by moralists who are not acquainted with L12C. It is aimed at "protecting" the NOs, making sure they get a good score, while ensuring that the OS gets a bad score. There is no such principle in the Laws. Leave it to heaven. In this part of the West I often see an even worse use of the P function. In the example you give, a TD will award +50P for the NOs, while letting the OS keep their +400. It's good PR, both sides are happy, the TD doesn't have to mess with an appeal, and the OS's field are unaware that they have been screwed. I have witnessed this even at NABCs, but the TDs invariably were directing minor events (where they belong) and were from California. Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, 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 Sep 30 05:09:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8TJ8v405087 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 05:08:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8TJ8pt05083 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 05:08:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA25989; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 12:08:47 -0700 Message-Id: <200009291908.MAA25989@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 29 Sep 2000 19:03:20 PDT." Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 12:08:48 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: > NN NN OOO ! > NNN NN OO OO !!! > NN N NN OO OO !!! > NN N NN OO OO !!! > NN N NN OO OO !!! > NN N NN OO OO ! > NN NNN OO OO > NN NN OOO !!! Oh dear, another vague, wishy-washy answer from John. John, could we prevail upon you to be clearer in your posts, so that we all you what you're trying to say? Thanks. :) -- 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 Sep 30 05:10:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8TJAHc05099 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 05:10:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8TJAAt05095 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 05:10:11 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e8TJAS110610 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 15:10:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200009291910.e8TJAS110610@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] What are the logical alternatives here? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 15:10:28 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at Sep 29, 2000 12:04:37 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 David Stevenson writes: > > Adam Wildavsky wrote: > >At 1:09 AM -0400 9/25/00, Adam Wildavsky should have written: > >>EW Vul, Matchpoints > >> > >>W N E S > >> P 2H 2H is weak and could be a 5 card suit > >>P P 3C P > >>3H X P P 3H asks for a heart stop and pass denies one > >>3S P 3N P 3N shows a partial heart stop, typically Qx or Jxx (snippage) > >Here's more of the tale. East hesitated before bidding 3NT. All > >parties concede that West had UI. The next question is: What does the > >UI demonstrably suggest? Usually the UI would suggest pulling rather > >than sitting with a marginal hand, but here most of those who counted > >Pass a LA were hoping for heart blockage. > > > >So, part two of the question, especially for those who agree that Pass > >is a LA: > > > >Which action(s) does UI demonstrably suggest? None that I can see. > >Or, what kind of hand would have trouble bidding 3N in tempo here? > > A hand that either has an alternative action or a hand which can see > no sensible action whatever. For example a 3=3=1=6, maybe with 10xx in > hearts. Two hand types come to mind. Both have the promised half stopper. 1. A lousy hand in the context of the earlier bidding (IE clubs not the source of tricks partner might hope for and with only a single stopper, 3NT could be bloody. 2. Thinking about whether partner's 3S call had anything to do with spades. > But it certainly does suggest not passing 3NT. I agree. To me it's the AI that suggests 3NT is unlikely to work out. I don't see the UI as suggesting any action. -- RNJ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 30 05:20:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8TJK0C05116 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 05:20:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8TJJtt05112 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 05:19:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.24]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 12:17:28 -0700 Message-ID: <009101c02a4a$19255f40$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <200009291753.KAA24600@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 12:18:46 -0700 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 Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Marvin French wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > +=+ One of the subjects for the major law review is a > > > proposal that an established revoke shall be dealt with > > > wholly by the principle in Law 64C, i.e. by the > > > restoration of the lost equity ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > Who is doing this proposing, I wonder? No doubt someone who sees that > > it is a logical follow-up to the "equity" principle embodied in L12C3. > > I don't know who made this particular proposal, but _The Bridge World_ > has recently editorialized in favor of such a change. > Yes, and to an extreme degree, Jeff Rubens opining that the principle should be extended to *all* mechanical infractions. To be fair, he may be advocating this principle only for "expert games." >From his BW editorial of September 2000 (in which he was recommending ways to reduce the slow play problem in major team matches): "In expert games, encourage claims and concessions by eliminating the picky-technicality paradigm for adjudicating disputes and replacing it with an equity-seeking procedure (as we have recommended for all mechanical irregularities)." Grattan must have gotten to him. :)) Marv mlfrench@writeme.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 Sep 30 05:27:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8TJRTL05143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 05:27:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.50]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8TJRNt05139 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 05:27:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-002kslawrP279.dialsprint.net [158.252.182.81]) by avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3-EL_1_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA07379 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 12:27:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <200009291426360370.00D02629@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <008201c02a48$68cdbee0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> References: <200009291551.LAA10509@freenet10.carleton.ca> <008201c02a48$68cdbee0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.10.03.02 (3) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 14:26:36 -0500 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Mind your Ps and Qs Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >In this part of the West I often see an even worse use of the P >function. In the example you give, a TD will award +50P for the NOs, >while letting the OS keep their +400. It's good PR, both sides are >happy, the TD doesn't have to mess with an appeal, and the OS's field >are unaware that they have been screwed. I've seen something similar from one director at the local club, scoring something like +650/A+ where +650 NS was the table result; this rather than looking at the board to determine whether there was damage from UI or MI or whatever. Bleh. Best regards, Brian Baresch, Lawrence, Kansas baresch@earthlink.net Editing, writing, proofreading "In a mass-market economy, a revolutionary song is any song you choose to sing yourself." -- Utah Phillips -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 30 05:44:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8TJiUG05163 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 05:44:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8TJiPt05159 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 05:44:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.24]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 12:41:59 -0700 Message-ID: <009701c02a4d$84a925a0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <200009291658.JAA23879@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Mind your Ps and Qs Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 12:43:11 -0700 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 From: "Adam Beneschan" > P.S. Does ACBLScore have a function to assign a split score? It > wouldn't greatly surprise me if it doesn't. You can assign non-balancing scores, either actual or artificial. First you type S, then the N-S score, then the E-W score. You cannot assign L12C3-like scores such as 30% +400 and 70% +430. At least I can't find such a function. But then, the ACBL doesn't accept the L12C3 option. You can assign a specific number of matchpoints (negative only for IMP games) to either or both directions. I don't know what this does to the other pairs. I suppose this option could be used to achieve L12C3 effects. Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, 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 Sep 30 05:54:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8TJs1x05175 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 05:54:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8TJrtt05171 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 05:53:56 +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 MAA26759; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 12:53:50 -0700 Message-Id: <200009291953.MAA26759@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Mind your Ps and Qs In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 29 Sep 2000 12:05:43 PDT." <008201c02a48$68cdbee0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 12:53:51 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin French wrote: > In this part of the West I often see an even worse use of the P > function. In the example you give, a TD will award +50P for the NOs, > while letting the OS keep their +400. It's good PR, both sides are > happy, the TD doesn't have to mess with an appeal, and the OS's field > are unaware that they have been screwed. I have witnessed this even at > NABCs, but the TDs invariably were directing minor events (where they > belong) and were from California. Well, that answers one of my questions---what the "P" stood for. I guess it stands for Public Relations. Or maybe Politics? I still haven't figured out the Q, though. -- 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 Sep 30 06:08:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8TK8LP05198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 06:08:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8TK8Dt05191 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 06:08:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive41e.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.16.46]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA08472; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 16:08:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <013101c02a51$801744a0$2e10f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Ben Schelen" , "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] How to treat third hand opening agreements. Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 16:10:45 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_012B_01C02A2F.D285FDC0" 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_012B_01C02A2F.D285FDC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This looks rather like a fielded psych to me...but the auction is not = yet over. It is hard to tell at this point if there will be resultant = damage. Of course 1N is a reasonable action by West...it will not always = be a make of course but the vulnerability is right...-300 vs -120 looks = like a worse case, and it makes it difficult for NS to find a marginal = major suit game. Besides, 1D MAY be weak...it need not be. Unless we are = planning to play there I want partner to know I lack a four card major = but have values...this may be OUR hand. Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: Ben Schelen To: bridge-laws Date: Friday, September 29, 2000 5:04 AM Subject: [BLML] How to treat third hand opening agreements. =20 =20 Board 12 W/NS pairs contest, experienced pairs for years, regional = top level J 7 4 Q 10 8 3 9 4 2 A K 10 10 6 2 8 5 3 A J 5 6 2 J 7 6 Q 10 5 3 Q 6 5 2 9 8 7 4 A K Q 9 K 9 7 4 A K 8 J 3=20 W N E S pass pass 1D X pass CC EW: third hand bid can be weak ( not more than that) Questions: 1a Is the third hand agreement a BSC? 1b Is 1D a psyche? 1c Other? 2a Is wests pass understanding? West says:" My partner have never = done that before." 2b Would 1NT be logical in a pair contest, more barrage, preemptive = against vulnerable? The TD knows that west is not so very particular in order "to obtain = a good result": in the past west violated intentionally twice a = convention creating a BSC and yielding profit. West has been given a = warning for that. Your reactions please. ------=_NextPart_000_012B_01C02A2F.D285FDC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This looks = rather like a=20 fielded psych to me...but the auction  is not yet over. It is hard = to tell=20 at this point if there will be resultant damage. Of course 1N is a = reasonable=20 action by West...it will not always be a make of course but the = vulnerability is=20 right...-300 vs -120 looks like a worse case, and it makes it difficult = for NS=20 to find a marginal major suit game. Besides, 1D MAY be weak...it need = not be.=20 Unless we are planning to play there I want partner to know I lack a = four card=20 major but have values...this may be OUR hand.
 
Craig Senior
-----Original = Message-----
From:=20 Ben Schelen <b.schelen@iae.nl>
To:=20 bridge-laws <bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au= >
Date:=20 Friday, September 29, 2000 5:04 AM
Subject: [BLML] How = to=20 treat third hand opening agreements.

Board 12 W/NS pairs contest, experienced pairs for years, = regional top=20 level

=

           &nbs= p;         =20 J 7 4

=

           &nbs= p;       =20 Q 10 8 3

=

           &nbs= p;        =20 9 4 2

=

           &nbs= p;        =20 A K 10

10 6=20 = 2            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;     =20 8 5 3

A J=20 = 5            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;         6=20 2

J 7=20 = 6            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;          Q=20 10 5 3

Q 6 5=20 = 2            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;     =20 9 8 7 4

=

           &nbs= p;            = ;=20 A K Q 9

=

           &nbs= p;            = ;  K=20 9 7 4

=

           &nbs= p;            = ; =20 A K 8

=

           &nbs= p;            = ;   J=20 3

=

W           =20 = N            =   =20 = E            =  =20 S

pass    =20 pass          =20 = 1D            = ;=20 X

pass

CC EW: third hand bid can be weak ( not more than that)

Questions:

1a Is the third hand agreement a BSC?

1b Is 1D a psyche?

1c Other?

2a Is wests pass understanding? West says:" My partner have = never=20 done that before."

2b Would 1NT be logical in a pair contest, more barrage, = preemptive=20 against vulnerable?

The TD knows that west is not so very particular in order = "to obtain=20 a good result": in the past west violated intentionally twice a = convention creating a BSC and yielding profit. West has been given a = warning=20 for that.

Your reactions please.

 

------=_NextPart_000_012B_01C02A2F.D285FDC0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 30 06:08:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8TK8Ig05197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 06:08:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8TK8At05188 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 06:08:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive41e.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.16.46]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA31012 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 16:08:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <013001c02a51$7f0c3d40$2e10f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Squeeze Appeal Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 14:55:25 -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 > >Grattan Endicotthhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh >Questions show the mind's range, and > answers its subtlety." ~ Joubert. >iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i >iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii >----- Original Message ----- >From: John (MadDog) Probst >> > >> Ahem! David. Just what is the score for 6NT? We will be demanding a >> full-blown grovel. >> -- >+=+ Drat that cat. +=+ > Whilst we have all experienced the occasional hairball, I do think Q would have gotten it right. (Barring a shot or two of catnip of course.) 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 30 06:25:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8TKPeO05222 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 06:25:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8TKPXt05218 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 06:25:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive41e.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.16.46]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA28270; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 16:25:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <014601c02a53$e3486ac0$2e10f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Alerts Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 16:28:53 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The problem with this is that any non-beginner will not know what this is unless it is carefully explained. A large part of the membership learned either Silverman or Goren, and unless a teacher does not know Grant or Easybridge. This will become a more realistic baseline in the ACBL as the years pass of course, and I see the merit in it. It just is not a baseline that will be instantly evident to the vast majority of club players if it is to determine what is alertable. (Even so, it might be an improvement over the confusing maze we now have after the latest revisions to the modified changes to the alterations to the adjusted system. :-) I doubt if there are 10 people in the average club who understand the current alerting regulations, sadly including many qualified and certified directors. Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: Linda Trent To: Bridge Laws Date: Friday, September 29, 2000 2:10 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] ACBL Alerts >If I were going to come up with a base system, I would use everything that >is taught in Audrey Grant's three books plus everything in EasyBridge up to >and including the Conventions course. That is the only formal instructional >material that is out there (supported by ACBL) and what a large number >(almost all?) of beginners are being taught these days. > >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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 30 06:26:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8TKQJF05235 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 06:26:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8TKQDt05231 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 06:26:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from freenet10.carleton.ca (freenet10 [134.117.136.30]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/NCF_f1_v3.00) with ESMTP id QAA24410 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 16:26:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/NCF-Sun-Client) id QAA03107; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 16:26:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 16:26:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200009292026.QAA03107@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Mind your Ps and Qs Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >Well, that answers one of my questions---what the "P" stood for. I >guess it stands for Public Relations. Or maybe Politics? > >I still haven't figured out the Q, though. > > -- Adam Q follows P like Eve follows Adam (and don't you dare say from Paradise to Damnation! :-)). Tony (aka ac342) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 30 08:43:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8TMhB005319 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 08:43:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8TMh0t05311 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 08:43:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.63] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13f8rn-000MDn-00; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 23:42:56 +0100 Message-ID: <002101c02a66$c71be9e0$3f5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: References: <200009291837.LAA25415@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Mind your Ps and Qs Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 23:37:23 +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: Cc: Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 7:37 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Mind your Ps and Qs > > Jack Rhind wrote: > > > I had a situation in a tournament last year where a player thought > > that 2S was a transfer to D's. His partner did not alert and bid > > 2NT. The 2S bidder then corrected to 3D and they played there making > > 5. At no time during the play did declarer inform the NOS that he > > had made a bidding mistake, and therefore did not have spades. The > > NOS had a stack of spades and could certainly compete in the > > auction, but not to the 5 level. OS got a bad score for 3D since 5D > > is cold. I used this feature to ensure that declarer kept his bad > > result. My concern was that a couple of pairs going down in 6D could > > suddenly change the A-- to an A. Using that feature allows declarer > > to keep the result they earned but guards against it unexpectedly > > becoming a better result by poor scores elsewhere. > > This is what I was talking about---it seems to be a failure to > understand and/or apply the Laws properly. If you think the NO's > would have failed to push the opponents into 6D, then they were not > damaged by the infraction +=+ WHAT infraction???? +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 30 08:43:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8TMhBS05320 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 08:43:12 +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 e8TMh1t05312 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 08:43:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.63] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13f8rp-000MDn-00; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 23:42:57 +0100 Message-ID: <002201c02a66$c840e1e0$3f5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: References: <200009291837.LAA25415@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Mind your Ps and Qs Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 23:42:44 +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 To: Cc: Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 7:37 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Mind your Ps and Qs > > Jack Rhind wrote: > > > I had a situation in a tournament last year where a player thought > > that 2S was a transfer to D's. His partner did not alert and bid > > 2NT. The 2S bidder then corrected to 3D and they played there making > > 5. At no time during the play did declarer inform the NOS that he > > had made a bidding mistake, and therefore did not have spades. The > > NOS had a stack of spades and could certainly compete in the > > auction, but not to the 5 level. OS got a bad score for 3D since 5D > > is cold. I used this feature to ensure that declarer kept his bad > > result. My concern was that a couple of pairs going down in 6D could > > suddenly change the A-- to an A. Using that feature allows declarer > > to keep the result they earned but guards against it unexpectedly > > becoming a better result by poor scores elsewhere. > +=+ No doubt I have misunderstood this. It reads as though declarer had misbid but his partner gave no misinformation. There is no requirement for Declarer to reveal that he has misbid (Law 75B), there is no infraction, so no Director has the power to adjust the score at all. But what I think I have read is that he did; would you please tell me what it is that I have not understood. Or perhaps the Director, correctly, did not touch the score and that is what I have misunderstood? ~ 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 Sep 30 08:44:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8TMiP505338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 08:44:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8TMiKt05334 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 08:44:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.104.165]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20000929224657.IHZN2253970.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 10:46:57 +1200 Message-ID: <044c01c02a65$ec9009a0$b72d37d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "bridge-laws" References: <003401c029f2$a3f2d9c0$65033dd4@default> Subject: Re: [BLML] How to treat third hand opening agreements. Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 10:37:58 +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 Ben Schelen wrote: >Questions: >1a Is the third hand agreement a BSC? >1b Is 1D a psyche? Yes. Unless this is part of their agreement then it should be disclosed and may be regulated (and hence be illegal). >1c Other? >2a Is wests pass understanding? West says:" My partner have never done that before." Maybe, but I don't see that it is an illegal understanding I frequently pass on such hands opposite an opening in any seat. >2b Would 1NT be logical in a pair contest, more barrage, preemptive against vulnerable? Not necessarily. I don't see why one must bid on this auction. Why bid on a marginal hand when pd is guaranteed another bid. >The TD knows that west is not so very particular in order "to obtain a good result": in the past west violated intentionally twice a convention creating a BSC and yielding profit. West has been given a warning for that. >Your reactions please. Don't see a problem here unless there is a partnership understanding for east to bid with *this* weak hand or its equivalent. 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 Sat Sep 30 09:36:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8TNaIW05379 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 09:36:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8TNaCt05375 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 09:36:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA30265; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 16:36:06 -0700 Message-Id: <200009292336.QAA30265@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Mind your Ps and Qs In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 29 Sep 2000 23:37:23 PDT." <002101c02a66$c71be9e0$3f5908c3@dodona> Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 16:36:08 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > > Jack Rhind wrote: > > > > > I had a situation in a tournament last year where a player thought > > > that 2S was a transfer to D's. His partner did not alert and bid > > > 2NT. The 2S bidder then corrected to 3D and they played there making > > > 5. At no time during the play did declarer inform the NOS that he > > > had made a bidding mistake, and therefore did not have spades. The > > > NOS had a stack of spades and could certainly compete in the > > > auction, but not to the 5 level. OS got a bad score for 3D since 5D > > > is cold. I used this feature to ensure that declarer kept his bad > > > result. My concern was that a couple of pairs going down in 6D could > > > suddenly change the A-- to an A. Using that feature allows declarer > > > to keep the result they earned but guards against it unexpectedly > > > becoming a better result by poor scores elsewhere. > > > > This is what I was talking about---it seems to be a failure to > > understand and/or apply the Laws properly. If you think the NO's > > would have failed to push the opponents into 6D, then they were not > > damaged by the infraction > > +=+ WHAT infraction???? +=+ Ahh, I missed that. Since the debate was about how to score after an infraction, rather than about whether an infraction occurred, I glossed over that part and took it for granted that there was a MI infraction. Regarding the scoring issue, my comments still would still apply in a case where everything was just as Jack stated but there was a failure to explain properly, and no misbid; and the TD did not determine that the opponents failed to sufficiently protect themselves. -- 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 Sep 30 11:34:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8U1Xwv05467 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:33:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8U1Xgt05457 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:33:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13fBWx-000C17-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 01:33:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 16:31:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] How to treat third hand opening agreements. References: <003401c029f2$a3f2d9c0$65033dd4@default> In-Reply-To: <003401c029f2$a3f2d9c0$65033dd4@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ***Please turn your HTML off before posting*** Ben Schelen wrote: Board 12 W/NS pairs contest, experienced pairs for years, regional top level J 7 4 Q 10 8 3 9 4 2 A K 10 10 6 2 8 5 3 A J 5 6 2 J 7 6 Q 10 5 3 Q 6 5 2 9 8 7 4 A K Q 9 K 9 7 4 A K 8 J 3 W N E S pass pass 1D X pass CC EW: third hand bid can be weak ( not more than that) Questions: 1a Is the third hand agreement a BSC? 1b Is 1D a psyche? 1c Other? 2a Is wests pass understanding? West says:" My partner have never done that before." 2b Would 1NT be logical in a pair contest, more barrage, preemptive against vulnerable? The TD knows that west is not so very particular in order "to obtain a good result": in the past west violated intentionally twice a convention creating a BSC and yielding profit. West has been given a warning for that. Your reactions please. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Sep 30 11:34:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8U1XvA05466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:33:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8U1Xgt05456 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:33:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13fBWx-000C16-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 01:33:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 16:23:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke References: <001301c028be$4817f200$1113f7a5@oemcomputer> <002501c028c7$4eaae740$4f5908c3@dodona> <012601c029cc$266fc420$1c5908c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <012601c029cc$266fc420$1c5908c3@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: David Stevenson >> So the one thing the WBFLC **must not** do is to make one of the >> basics into a judgement decision. They must not make revokes a >> judgement decision. They *must* have an automatic penalty for a revoke. >> >> Ton. Grattan. Joan. Everyone. Please. >> >> Remember the club TD! >> >+=+ I would not be proposing it! Far too many >other things to look at. But I thought I might get >someone huffing and puffing. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ___ / o\_ _________ | _> _/ \___\ /_ <_ \ \ / ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Best I can do, I'm a farid [sic]. -- 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 Sat Sep 30 11:34:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8U1Y5J05471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:34:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8U1Xmt05465 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:33:59 +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 13fBX4-000O30-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 01:33:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 20:58:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: [BLML] Usenet Bridge abbreviations MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Usenet Bridge Abbreviations ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score ATF Across-the-field [matchpointing] ATTNA Appeal to the National Authority BBL British Bridge League BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn BTW By the way C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card CoC Conditions of contest COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CoP Code of practice CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge DP Disciplinary penalty EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union F2F Face-to-face [to distinguish from Online bridge] FAQ Frequently asked questions [often produced as a document] GCC General Convention Chart [ACBL] HTH Hope this helps FOLOOT Faced Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn IIRC If I remember correctly IMHO In my humble opinion [included under protest] IMO In my opinion LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] Lnn Law number nn LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn ME Misexplanation MI Misinformation MPC Major penalty card mPC Minor penalty card MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NA National Authority NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NG Newsgroup NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NOs Non-offenders NOS Non-offending side NP No problem OBM Old Black Magic OBOOT Opening-Bid-Out-Of-Turn OKB OKBridge OLB Online bridge [to distinguish from Face-to-face bridge] OLOOT Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn OOT Out-Of-Turn Os Offenders OS Offending side OTOH On the other hand POOT Pass-Out-Of-Turn [or] POOT Play-Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural penalty RA Regulating Authority RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from Online bridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RotG Rub-of-the-green RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge TFLB The [fabulous] Law book! UI Unauthorised information WBF World Bridge Federation WBFLC WBF Laws Committee WBU Welsh Bridge Union WTP What's the problem? YC Young Chelsea ZO Zonal organisation ZT Zero Tolerance [for unacceptable behaviour] Hand diagrams: ..3H 3H after a hesitation 3Ha 3H alerted Emails only: FFTQFTE Feel free to quote from this email The above may also be found on David's Bridgepage at http://blakjak.com/usenet_br.htm 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 Sat Sep 30 12:52:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8U2pKJ05554 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 12:51:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f24.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.24]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8U2pFt05550 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 12:51:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 19:51:07 -0700 Received: from 172.175.74.184 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 02:51:06 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.175.74.184] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 19:51:06 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Sep 2000 02:51:07.0347 (UTC) FILETIME=[4803D230:01C02A89] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Adam Beneschan >John Probst wrote: > > > NN NN OOO ! > > NNN NN OO OO !!! > > NN N NN OO OO !!! > > NN N NN OO OO !!! > > NN N NN OO OO !!! > > NN N NN OO OO ! > > NN NNN OO OO > > NN NN OOO !!! > > >Oh dear, another vague, wishy-washy answer from John. John, could we >prevail upon you to be clearer in your posts, so that we all you what >you're trying to say? Thanks. > >:) -- Adam I got as far as " so" before I got a splitting headache. At least I you that sentence now. :) -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 Sat Sep 30 13:00:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8U2xrp05578 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 12:59:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8U2xht05570 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 12:59:44 +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 13fCsF-000OHj-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 03:59:40 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 03:33:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht References: <003f01c027e9$bec022e0$c4dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <39D198BB.1361807C@mindspring.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000929080523.00ab7730@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20000929080523.00ab7730@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: >Perhaps what's bothering Peter is the enthusiasm with which we currently >embrace solutions to "the UI problem" without giving due thought to their >costs. One could argue that the effort to make tempo breaks on the other >side of the screen invisible has the benefit of depriving the >tempo-breaker's partner of UI, and the simultaneous cost of depriving his >partner's screenmate of AI. One could then debate where the cost-benefit >balance lies. But one could also argue we have L16A to deal with the UI >(deterring or coping with any infractions -- the transmission of the UI is >not in itself an infraction), whereas we have no mechanism available to >offset the consequences of the loss of AI. I think that the reason that we are embracing these solutions is because they have been tried and seen as an improvement rather than because people feel they logically must be. >Ultimately, it should come down to a debate between those who believe that >F2F bridge (at least at the high levels) should strive to emulate bridge >played on computers and those who believe that table feel is an inherent >part of the game and steps to eliminate it move the game in the wrong >direction. > >In an ideal world, we would have magic screens that would allow each player >at the table to observe both his opponents while preventing him from >observing his partner. Since we have only mundane screens, we should try >to use them in a way that best emulates that ideal. Magic? What is wrong with a simple diamond screen? /\ _________/__\_________ | / \ | | / \ | | / \ | | / \ | | \ / | | \ / | | \ / | |________\____/________| \ / \/ -- 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 Sat Sep 30 13:00:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8U2xrP05577 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 12:59:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8U2xht05569 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 12:59:44 +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 13fCsD-000OHk-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 03:59:39 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 03:35:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Squeeze Appeal References: <013001c02a51$7f0c3d40$2e10f7a5@oemcomputer> In-Reply-To: <013001c02a51$7f0c3d40$2e10f7a5@oemcomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <013001c02a51$7f0c3d40$2e10f7a5@oemcomputer>, Craig Senior writes >>Grattan Endicott>From: John (MadDog) Probst >>> Ahem! David. Just what is the score for 6NT? We will be demanding a >>> full-blown grovel. >>+=+ Drat that cat. +=+ >Whilst we have all experienced the occasional hairball, I do think Q would >have gotten it right. (Barring a shot or two of catnip of course.) Grrrrrrroooooowwwwwwwwwwlllllllll !!!!!!!!!!!!! I am not responsible for David's scoring - perish the thought. 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 Sat Sep 30 13:08:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8U38Nw05603 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 13:08:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f155.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.155]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8U38It05599 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 13:08:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 20:08:10 -0700 Received: from 172.175.74.184 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 03:08:10 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.175.74.184] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 20:08:10 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Sep 2000 03:08:10.0360 (UTC) FILETIME=[A9C73780:01C02A8B] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson >Reply-To: David Stevenson >To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au >Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke >Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 16:23:32 +0100 > >Grattan Endicott wrote: > >From: David Stevenson > > >> So the one thing the WBFLC **must not** do is to make one of the > >> basics into a judgement decision. They must not make revokes a > >> judgement decision. They *must* have an automatic penalty for a >revoke. > >> > >> Ton. Grattan. Joan. Everyone. Please. > >> > >> Remember the club TD! > >> > >+=+ I would not be proposing it! Far too many > >other things to look at. But I thought I might get > >someone huffing and puffing. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > ___ > / o\_ > _________ | _> > _/ \___\ /_ > <_ \ > \ / >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Best I can do, I'm a farid [sic]. I do not doubt you mean that exactly as presented, but my poor American vocabulary hasn't the slightest idea what was meant. Could someone explain this pun for me? -Todd (It'll be obvious the second I hit send, I know it....) _________________________________________________________________________ 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 Sat Sep 30 13:38:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8U3c3r05632 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 13:38:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8U3bvt05628 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 13:37:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA01663; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 20:37:50 -0700 Message-Id: <200009300337.UAA01663@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 30 Sep 2000 03:33:48 PDT." Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 20:37:53 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >In an ideal world, we would have magic screens that would allow each player > >at the table to observe both his opponents while preventing him from > >observing his partner. Since we have only mundane screens, we should try > >to use them in a way that best emulates that ideal. > > Magic? What is wrong with a simple diamond screen? If I'm following this thread correctly, we were talking about tempo breaks. It would *really* take a lot of magic to develop a screen that would let you observe LHO's and RHO's tempo but not partner, since this screen would have to allow you to see when your LHO passes the tray to your partner, and to see when your RHO receives the tray, but prevent you from observing how long it took partner to make his call. A diamond screen would work for other types of UI, though. -- 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 Sep 30 16:31:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8U6U5o05782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 16:30:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alpha.netvision.net.il (alpha.netvision.net.il [194.90.1.13]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8U6Twt05778 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 16:29:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from eitan (ras4-p116.nt.netvision.net.il [212.143.221.240]) by alpha.netvision.net.il (8.9.3/8.8.6) with SMTP id JAA22231 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 09:29:53 +0300 (IDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20000930093654.00869660@netvision.net.il> X-Sender: moranl@netvision.net.il (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 09:36:54 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Eitan Levy Subject: Re: [BLML] Mind your Ps and Qs In-Reply-To: <200009291551.LAA10509@freenet10.carleton.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:51 29/09/2000 -0400, you wrote: >ACBLScore, the program used in the ACBL to score events, has a >function called P and Q. P is used when a director assigns an >adjusted score (for example, changes a score from +400 to -50) >but wants to protect the players' A+ (the NOs get -50 or A+, >whichever is better). Q does the opposite (the Os get -50 or >A-, whichever is worse). A few questions: > >1) is this legal? (just because the program permits this does not mean > it's legal--this IS the ACBL :-)) >2) if it is legal, under what circumstances would it be used? > Thanks! > Tony (aka ac342) Regarding function Q: If the table score is left intact, then Q would deal perfectly and legally with a substituted call under law 25B2(b)(2) Eitan Levy -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 30 17:16:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8U7Ftq05860 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 17:15:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8U7Fnt05856 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 17:15:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.24]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 00:16:03 -0700 Message-ID: <004501c02aae$1ab32cc0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: , References: <200009291901.UAA18739@tempest.npl.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Mind your Ps and Qs Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 00:14:32 -0700 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 Robin Barker wrote: David Grabiner wrote: > > > after a hesitation; 5D was doubled and down one for +100. The director > > determined that 4S could have been beaten on best defense (which was > > not necessarily going to happen), and therefore he couldn't award us > > +620 (and certainly wouldn't award us -100). Instead, he awarded > > average-plus, ... And let the score stand for the OS, no doubt, a typical PR ruling. > > If the director determined that best defence wasn't necessarily going to > happen, then 4S= is likely and he CAN (in the absence of L12C3) award +620. > Robin, this use of "likely" out of context is confusing everyone, even the ACBL NABC AC. Something that is "likely" must have a probability of more than 50%, but an event that is the most [adjective][event] that was likely may be somewhat improbable. It's an idiomatic expression of the English language, and one can't get the meaning of idiomatic expressions by looking up the meaning of individual words. In the context of L12C2, "likely' is equivalent to "not unlikely." The procedure is this, assuming there was an infraction: If it was not unlikely that 4S would make, the OS gets +620. Otherwise result stands for them, +100. If it was at all probable that 4S would make, the NOS gets -620. Otherwise result stands for both sides,+/-100. This is equitable, L12C3 or no L12C3. Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, 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 Sep 30 18:34:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8U8XPs05909 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 18:33:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8U8XGt05905 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 18:33:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-99.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.99]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA22509 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 10:33:11 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39D4AC63.FDC7F67D@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 16:51:15 +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] Laws Articles from Maastricht References: <003f01c027e9$bec022e0$c4dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000929080523.00ab7730@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: > > > In an ideal world, we would have magic screens that would allow each player > at the table to observe both his opponents while preventing him from > observing his partner. Since we have only mundane screens, we should try > to use them in a way that best emulates that ideal. > I don't believe this would be ideal. IMO, a player has a right to some information but not to others. For instance, one does NOT have the right to the knowledge that opponents are having a bidding mistake. I believe therefor that the philosophy of bridge regulations should be that one is allowed to have all the information that one wants, from one source, and one source only. Not two. If that one source gives a wrong answer, you are entitled to reectification of any damage you occur. But you should not be allowed to ask from more than one source if all you are seeking is trying to find misinformation, hints at misunderstanding or are trying to pass UI between partners. The following should not be allowed: -asking both opponents (not allowed now in F2F, allowed in on-line) -checking the CC AND asking the player (*) (*) however, the following should be allowed: -checking the CC and then asking for clarification, and completion -asking the other player when one says "I don't remember" Along the same lines, I would advocate that in F2F, ONE player of the partnership explains all calls, including his own. -- 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 Sep 30 20:31:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8UAUi306009 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 20:30:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8UAUet06004 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 20:30:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id na822783 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 20:24:57 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-222-56.tmns.net.au ([203.54.222.56]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-Disorderly-MailRouter V2.9b 13/13547606); 30 Sep 2000 20:24:56 Message-ID: <000201c02a6c$986eb2c0$38de36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] How to treat third hand opening agreements. Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 08:46:01 +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 Ben Schelen wrote: > >1a Is the third hand agreement a BSC? no. >1b Is 1D a psyche? yes. >1c Other? no. >2a Is West's pass understanding? West says:" My partner >had never done that before." West's pass seems normal enough to me. Most players would bid 1NT, some would pass and await developments. If West had 10 HCP, then it would be different, his pass would then be abnormal. >2b Would 1NT be logical in a pair contest, more barrage, >preemptive against vulnerable? If we gave the problem to a MSC-style forum, surely there would be many more votes for 1NT than for Pass. However I don't think the Pass is sufficiently abnormal to be regarded as fielding a psyche, even if the player has a suspect history. 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 Sep 30 21:41:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8UBeNU06120 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 21:40:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e8UBeFt06116 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 21:40:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.140.73] (helo=D457300) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13fKzx-00035E-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 12:40:10 +0100 Message-ID: <000a01c02ad3$0d6283c0$498c01d5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: <003f01c027e9$bec022e0$c4dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <39D198BB.1361807C@mindspring.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000929080523.00ab7730@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 12:39:05 +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: [EL] > >Perhaps what's bothering Peter is the enthusiasm with which we currently > >embrace solutions to "the UI problem" without giving due thought to their > >costs. One could argue that the effort to make tempo breaks on the other > >side of the screen invisible has the benefit of depriving the > >tempo-breaker's partner of UI, and the simultaneous cost of depriving his > >partner's screenmate of AI. One could then debate where the cost-benefit > >balance lies. But one could also argue we have L16A to deal with the UI > >(deterring or coping with any infractions -- the transmission of the UI is > >not in itself an infraction), whereas we have no mechanism available to > >offset the consequences of the loss of AI. [DWS] > I think that the reason that we are embracing these solutions is > because they have been tried and seen as an improvement rather than > because people feel they logically must be. I would like to see some actual evidence for this. I know from my own experience that the regulation requiring "random" huddles was more or less completely ignored in Maastricht. You *never* saw it happen on Vugraph, and it happened on precisely none of the 624 boards that the English team played. It was supposed to happen at the Junior European championships in Antalya. It did not. Now, it may be that this "solution" has in fact been tried, or a large scale, at a major tournament somewhere in the world, and that a significant number of the players involved have co-operated with the trial. But if that were so, I am sure that someone would by now have adduced this in evidence. It seems to me that the exact opposite of what DWS says above is actually the case. This "solution" is still no more than a proposal, which we are "embracing" because it makes logical sense, rather than because it has actually been tried under meaningful conditions anywhere on the planet. If I am wrong about this, I would very much welcome the news. But I fear that, as with a number of other regulations when screens are in use, this one works only in principle. Nobody uses the correct alerting procedure in major championships either, and what appears to me to have happened with the "random tray movement" idea is the same as has happened with the alert procedure. It gets explained at the Captain's Meeting, it gets put in the Conditions of Contest, it gets mentioned in reports of appeals - and it gets ignored by at least 98% of the players, who really just want to get on with the game. 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/