From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 1 02:32:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8UGV9006334 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 02:31:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8UGV1t06330 for ; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 02:31:02 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id RAA23638 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 17:30:50 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 17:30 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] How to treat third hand opening agreements. 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: <003401c029f2$a3f2d9c0$65033dd4@default> "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? Not as written, I would expect it be 7+ points normally. > 1b Is 1D a psyche? Yes, or the description is wholly inadequate. This is such a common psyche position that one can hardly believe the opposition would find it unexpected. > 1c Other? Mispull? Drunk/drugged? > 2a Is wests pass understanding? West says:" My partner have never > done that before." Pass seems reasonable, certainly not unusual, opposite a possible 7 count. Partner will have a chance to bid again. > 2b Would 1NT be logical in a pair contest, more barrage, preemptive > against vulnerable? Yes. Unless a tempo break/table action by South indicated a monster. However there is no suggestion of UI so I am not sure where this takes us. > 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. There is absolutely nothing wrong with violating a convention once. That is unlikely to create an agreement. The second time is much more likely to do so. He has been warned against a third offence, no problem (unless that offence was opening ultra-light in third). 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 Oct 1 04:14:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e8UIDvj06469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 04:13:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e8UIDpt06465 for ; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 04:13:52 +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 ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:14:06 -0700 Message-ID: <007e01c02b0a$09ed7c40$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <003f01c027e9$bec022e0$c4dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000929080523.00ab7730@127.0.0.1> <39D4AC63.FDC7F67D@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:12:43 -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 Herman de Wael 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. > > > > 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. Eric's did not say anything about getting information from two opponents, did he? You need a screen (perhaps DWS's excellent diamond arrangement, which I can imagine only in principle, not in actual design) that permits a player to see both opponents while getting secure information from only one. Of course that would be LHO when an explanation of RHO's action is needed, with RHO explaining LHO's actions, a much better arrangement than the current one in which only one opponent can be questioned. It follows the rule for pair games, and I don't know why the present arrangement has been accepted for so long. Maybe David or someone else could give us a better idea of what a diamond design would be like. Each player would have to pass the calls to LHO on a "lazy susan," with tempo observable by both opponents (another improvement) and deducible by partner (not good, but maybe a monitor could control movement of the lazy susan). 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 Sun Oct 1 10:58:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e910uix06769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 10:56:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e910uct06765 for ; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 10:56:39 +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; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 17:56:52 -0700 Message-ID: <00d001c02b42$4ed6a6a0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <200009291953.MAA26759@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Mind your Ps and Qs Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 17:47:44 -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 > 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. Not quite accurate, as the Ps and Qs precede the entry, plus is assumed, and the final zero is not entered. The program will not accept +50P, which has to be P5. > > 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. I have recommended to Gary Blaiss that his TDs be required to report and justify instances where they have made a one-sided adjustment, which should be a rare occurrence. > > Well, that answers one of my questions---what the "P" stood for. I > guess it stands for Public Relations. Or maybe Politics? As Adam well knows, it stands for plus. > I still haven't figured out the Q, though. > In the spirt of his comment, maybe the Q stands for questionable. 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 Sun Oct 1 12:02:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9121YB06826 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 12:01:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9121Kt06822 for ; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 12:01:20 +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 13fYRG-000ITj-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 03:01:16 +0100 Message-ID: <03zDNKAncc15Eww7@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:57:43 +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> <4.3.2.7.1.20000929080523.00ab7730@127.0.0.1> <39D4AC63.FDC7F67D@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <39D4AC63.FDC7F67D@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >The following should not be allowed: >-asking both opponents (not allowed now in F2F, allowed in >on-line) It is certainly not agreed that you can ask both oppos in online. Many players think it is just unethical to do so. -- 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 Oct 1 16:11:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e916AbQ07012 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 16:10:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e916AUt07003 for ; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 16:10:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.3] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13fcKL-000GBn-00; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 07:10:21 +0100 Message-ID: <000a01c02b6e$74413000$035408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Wayne Burrows" , "bridge-laws" References: <003401c029f2$a3f2d9c0$65033dd4@default> <044c01c02a65$ec9009a0$b72d37d2@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] How to treat third hand opening agreements. Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 07:33:34 +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: Friday, September 29, 2000 11:37 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] How to treat third hand opening agreements. > Ben Schelen wrote: > > >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. > +=+ I do not see, on the hand, that West has clear action that he has failed to take. With longer diamonds I would have a different opinion. ~ 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 Oct 1 16:11:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e916AfJ07013 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 16:10:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e916AXt07006 for ; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 16:10:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.3] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13fcKN-000GBn-00; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 07:10:24 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01c02b6e$759882a0$035408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Peter Gill" , "BLML" References: <000201c02a6c$986eb2c0$38de36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: [BLML] Not only humble, but umble. Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 00:49:16 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: BLML Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 11:46 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] How to treat third hand opening agreements. > Ben Schelen wrote: > > > >1a Is the third hand agreement a BSC? > > no. > +=+ I was too precipitate in saying that BSCs only affect bids above the level of one. I have done some further research in the WBF Systems Policy. The water gets quite deep as I wade in. (1) A psychic bid that is required or protected by system is BS. (2) If by agreement an opening bid at the one level may be made on a hand a K or more below average strength, the method is HUM. The case in point did not exhibit the conditions that would make it BS. However, if the practice developed to the point where an implicit PU was found to exist (that the bid might be seven points or less), it would be HUM. To expand this point, the PU is deemed to exist when the psychic action occurs sufficiently for the partner to be able "to take his awareness of the psychic possibilities into account, whether he does so or not" [WBFLC dictum]. So it would seem that if there is an agreement that requires a psychic to be made, or to protect a psychic action when it occurs, this is a BS convention; but if there is no such agreement and the psyches occur sufficiently to develop an implicit understanding, this is HUM. Now I am not sure whether this was the intention underlying the Systems Policy, but it certainly seems to be the effect of it as currently stated. ~ 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 Oct 1 18:42:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e918eMt07132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 18:40:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e918eEt07124 for ; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 18:40:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.154] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13fefK-000HKR-00; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 09:40:11 +0100 Message-ID: <001601c02b83$6246ef60$9a5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <003f01c027e9$bec022e0$c4dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com><4.3.2.7.1.20000929080523.00ab7730@127.0.0.1><39D4AC63.FDC7F67D@village.uunet.be> <03zDNKAncc15Eww7@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 07:36:21 +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 " I do loathe explanations " [Sir James Barrie] ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2000 11:57 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht > > It is certainly not agreed that you can ask both oppos in online. > Many players think it is just unethical to do so. > +=+ Would it not work for each player to alert/explain his own call on line - to both opponents but not partner? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 1 18:42:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e918eOm07133 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 18:40:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e918eFt07125 for ; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 18:40:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.154] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13fefM-000HKR-00; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 09:40:12 +0100 Message-ID: <001701c02b83$6331eba0$9a5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , References: <003f01c027e9$bec022e0$c4dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <39D198BB.1361807C@mindspring.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000929080523.00ab7730@127.0.0.1> <000a01c02ad3$0d6283c0$498c01d5@D457300> Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 09:39:07 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "He tried each art, reproved each dull delay, Allured to brighter worlds, and led the way." ('The Deserted Village') ----- Original Message ----- From: David Burn To: Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2000 12:39 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht ------------ \x/ --------------- > 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. --------------- \x/ -------------------- > +=+ The desired practice has not been adopted by players. It remains something the WBF is urging them to do. My view is that what would suffice is to move the board regularly in routine situations but delay the return in situations in which a player could potentially have a decision to make, of a judgemental kind. ~ 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 Oct 1 18:49:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e918lqL07159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 18:47:52 +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.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 e918lkt07155 for ; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 18:47:47 +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 <20001001084742.WOHI18111.mail.rdc1.md.home.com@cc283631-a.twsn1.md.home.com> for ; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 01:47:42 -0700 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 04:47:48 -0400 Message-ID: References: <003f01c027e9$bec022e0$c4dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000929080523.00ab7730@127.0.0.1> <39D4AC63.FDC7F67D@village.uunet.be> <03zDNKAncc15Eww7@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <03zDNKAncc15Eww7@blakjak.demon.co.uk> 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 Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:57:43 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Herman De Wael wrote: > >>The following should not be allowed: >>-asking both opponents (not allowed now in F2F, allowed in >>on-line) > > It is certainly not agreed that you can ask both oppos in online. >Many players think it is just unethical to do so. > It has to be said that a significant percentage of OKBridge (by far the largest online service) seem to feel entitled to two answers, at least in my experience, and they have the backing of OKBridge's Chief Tournament Director, Tony Reus, on this one. He has explicitly stated on a number of occasions in the Spectator (OKBridge's e-mail magazine, sent by default to all members who have registered a valid e-mail address with OKBridge and who do do not decline the magazine) that when an opponent asks a question of both players, both players should answer. This isn't saying I agree with the practice (I don't), but given OKB's published directives, I have to question the view that players who expect two answers are unethical. When a player is following the explicit written guidance of the CTD (whether that guidance is correct or not is another matter) I don't think you can reasonably consider that player to be unethical, even if you wouldn't dream of asking both opponents yourself. The situation is due in part (at least IMHO) to OKBridge's practice that you alert your own bids, with a private message to opponents which is not visible to your partner. Partner alerts are a SMALL minority on OKBridge, at least in my 5+ years experience of using the service. Given self-alerts, which have significant advantages for online bridge, it is at least unclear as to whether you direct a question about the bidding to the bidder or to their partner. I'm not stupid enough to try and take you on over TFLB, David, but if you find the idea of expecting two answers to be unethical, your target should be Tony Reus in the first instance, not those players who may well be innocently following official OKBridge guidelines. Brian. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Oct 1 19:19:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e919IAb07189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 19:18:10 +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 e919I6t07185 for ; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 19:18:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.104.72]) by mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20001001091940.GHER2009044.mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop>; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 22:19:40 +1300 Message-ID: <018b01c02b88$6e5b55c0$a86860cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "bridge-laws" References: <003401c029f2$a3f2d9c0$65033dd4@default> <044c01c02a65$ec9009a0$b72d37d2@laptop> <000a01c02b6e$74413000$035408c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] How to treat third hand opening agreements. Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 22:17:29 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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" To: "Wayne Burrows" ; "bridge-laws" Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2000 7:33 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] How to treat third hand opening agreements. > > Ben Schelen wrote: > > > > >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. > > > +=+ I do not see, on the hand, that West has > clear action that he has failed to take. With > longer diamonds I would have a different opinion. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I think this is what I was saying or at least trying to say. I was trying to say I have such an understanding in that I frequently pass on such auctions opposite an opener in any seat. Hence such an understanding is not necessarily based on the possibility of partner opening sub-minimum hands. 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 Sun Oct 1 19:29:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e919SFF07208 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 19:28:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e919SBt07204 for ; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 19:28:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.104.72]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20001001093258.PYAC1628747.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop>; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 22:32:58 +1300 Message-ID: <019101c02b89$d69b74c0$a86860cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "BLML" References: <000201c02a6c$986eb2c0$38de36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <000b01c02b6e$759882a0$035408c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Not only humble, but umble. Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 22:27:34 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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" To: "Peter Gill" ; "BLML" Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2000 12:49 PM Subject: [BLML] Not only humble, but umble. > > Grattan Endicott jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj > "" With bated breath and whispering humbleness" > (M.o.V.) > eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Peter Gill > To: BLML > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 11:46 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] How to treat third hand opening agreements. > > > > Ben Schelen wrote: > > > > > >1a Is the third hand agreement a BSC? > > > > no. > > > +=+ I was too precipitate in saying that BSCs > only affect bids above the level of one. I have > done some further research in the WBF Systems > Policy. The water gets quite deep as I wade in. > (1) A psychic bid that is required or > protected by system is BS. I shall keep on with my barrage. A psychic is not necessarily a convention so I can not see how a non-conventional psychic can ever be a BS Convention. It is nonsense. The law book defines convention so a necessary prerequisit for a bid to be a Brown or Purple or poka dot Convention is that it is a *convention*. > (2) If by agreement an opening bid at the > one level may be made on a hand a K or more > below average strength, the method is HUM. > The case in point did not exhibit the conditions > that would make it BS. However, if the practice > developed to the point where an implicit PU > was found to exist (that the bid might be seven > points or less), it would be HUM. To expand > this point, the PU is deemed to exist when the > psychic action occurs sufficiently for the > partner to be able "to take his awareness of the > psychic possibilities into account, whether he > does so or not" [WBFLC dictum]. > So it would seem that if there is an agreement > that requires a psychic to be made, or to protect > a psychic action when it occurs, this is a BS > convention; Not if it is not a convention. :-) >but if there is no such agreement and > the psyches occur sufficiently to develop an > implicit understanding, this is HUM. Now I am > not sure whether this was the intention underlying > the Systems Policy, but it certainly seems to be > the effect of it as currently stated. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Only if you allow non-conventions to be conventions :-) 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 Sun Oct 1 20:32:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e91AUhZ07261 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 20:30:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e91AUat07257 for ; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 20:30:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13fgO7-0008ot-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 10:30:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 03:11:18 +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> <000a01c02ad3$0d6283c0$498c01d5@D457300> In-Reply-To: <000a01c02ad3$0d6283c0$498c01d5@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: >[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. My understanding is that it was an ACBL idea used in their tourneys. -- 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 Oct 1 20:48:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e91AkVE07290 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 20:46:31 +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 e91AkPt07286 for ; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 20:46:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.202] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13fgdR-000Ifi-00; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 11:46:21 +0100 Message-ID: <002e01c02b95$027ad620$ca5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] How to treat third hand opening agreements. Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 11:46:35 +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 "I shall light a candle of understanding in thine heart, which shall not be put out." [Esdras] ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim West-meads To: Cc: Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2000 5:30 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] How to treat third hand opening agreements. _____ \x/ _____ > > > > 1a Is the third hand agreement a BSC? > > Not as written, I would expect it be 7+ points normally. > +=+ Be careful with '7' - that is a King below average.+=+ ------------------ \x/ --------------------- > > There is absolutely nothing wrong with violating a convention once. > That is unlikely to create an agreement. > +=+ As a generality this is a fair statement. It is not an absolute: about 40 years ago, playing with Peter Morley, in a competitive auction he showed me a seeming second suit (4 in a minor) - it was opponents' hand and they bid a slam which he doubled (we played Lightner) I led what I thought was their second suit - not a success; it was Peter's 'second suit' that turned out to be his void. We have never passed comment upon the occurrence, not even at the time, not our style - we assumed partner could see what we could see. But if I were ever to play with him and had a similar sequence today I would lead his second suit; I do not forget such trifles. ~ 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 Oct 1 21:21:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e91BKIK07324 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 21:20:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e91BKBt07320 for ; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 21:20:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.123.33.135] (helo=D457300) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13fhA6-000731-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 01 Oct 2000 12:20:07 +0100 Message-ID: <003801c02b99$6ade0620$87217bd5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: <003f01c027e9$bec022e0$c4dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <39D198BB.1361807C@mindspring.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000929080523.00ab7730@127.0.0.1> <000a01c02ad3$0d6283c0$498c01d5@D457300> Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 12:19:06 +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: [DB] > >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. [DWS] > My understanding is that it was an ACBL idea used in their tourneys. I am pleased to hear it. Don't get me wrong - I think that random tray movement is in principle a good idea, and I would very much like to see if it works when it is adopted as common practice. So I hope that there is indeed evidence from the USA (or anywhere) that it has been consistently applied and proved a success. The difficulty I have at the moment is this: in Maastricht and in Antalya, comments would appear in the record of appeals to the effect that if a tray took 15-20 seconds to come back, this was deemed not to constitute a tempo violation, and no UI would be considered to have been transmitted in this case. But at the table, a 15-20 second delay would in fact be obvious to the players (if the rest of the auction were in normal tempo), and a delay of that kind might very well convey some UI. Thus, the effect of the policy has been not to consider that UI had been passed when in fact it had, or might have been. This, it seems to me, is the worst of all possible worlds. 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 Sun Oct 1 21:39:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e91Bbr107337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 21:37:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e91Bbkt07333 for ; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 21:37:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.18] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13fhR2-000JDP-00; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 12:37:37 +0100 Message-ID: <000201c02b9c$2bb74ee0$125608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Wayne Burrows" , "BLML" References: <000201c02a6c$986eb2c0$38de36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <000b01c02b6e$759882a0$035408c3@dodona> <019101c02b89$d69b74c0$a86860cb@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] Not only humble, but umble. Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 12:37:49 +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 "I shall light a candle of understanding in thine heart, which shall not be put out." [Esdras] ----- Original Message ----- From: Wayne Burrows To: Grattan Endicott ; BLML Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2000 10:27 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Not only humble, but umble. > From: "Grattan Endicott" > To: "Peter Gill" ; "BLML" > Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2000 12:49 PM > Subject: [BLML] Not only humble, but umble. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Peter Gill > > To: BLML > > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 11:46 PM > > Subject: Re: [BLML] How to treat third hand opening agreements. > > > > +=+ I was too precipitate in saying that BSCs > > only affect bids above the level of one. I have > > done some further research in the WBF Systems > > Policy. The water gets quite deep as I wade in. > > (1) A psychic bid that is required or > > protected by system is BS. > > I shall keep on with my barrage. > > A psychic is not necessarily a convention so I can not see how a > non-conventional psychic can ever be a BS Convention. > > It is nonsense. The law book defines convention so a necessary prerequisit > for a bid to be a Brown or Purple or poka dot Convention is that it is a > *convention*. > +==++ Oh, come on, Wayne..... you are not reading what I have written. I wrote 'BS', not 'BSC'. Please return to square one and miss a turn whilst reading this extract: "The following conventions or treatments are categorised as 'Brown Sticker': -------- (h) Psychic bids protected by system or required by system. ---------------------- etc. " ++==+ > > > (2) If by agreement an opening bid at the > > one level may be made on a hand a K or more > > below average strength, the method is HUM. > > The case in point did not exhibit the conditions > > that would make it BS. However, if the practice > > developed to the point where an implicit PU > > was found to exist (that the bid might be seven > > points or less), it would be HUM. To expand > > this point, the PU is deemed to exist when the > > psychic action occurs sufficiently for the > > partner to be able "to take his awareness of the > > psychic possibilities into account, whether he > > does so or not" [WBFLC dictum]. > > So it would seem that if there is an agreement > > that requires a psychic to be made, or to protect > > a psychic action when it occurs, this is a BS > > convention; > > Not if it is not a convention. :-) > +=+ Agreed. The word should have been 'treatment' - we have tended to talk in shorthand, but by all means let us be accurate. The category is 'Brown Sticker' and it can apply to either a convention or a treatment. +=+ > > >but if there is no such agreement and > > the psyches occur sufficiently to develop an > > implicit understanding, this is HUM. Now I am > > not sure whether this was the intention underlying > > the Systems Policy, but it certainly seems to be > > the effect of it as currently stated. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Only if you allow non-conventions to be conventions :-) > +=+ or treatments; and if a treatment means that an opening bid may be made on a K or more less than... etc. etc., it may be regulated. ~ 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 Oct 1 23:22:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e91DLNq07420 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 23:21:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e91DLGt07416 for ; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 23:21:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-5-203.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.5.203]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA22355 for ; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 15:21:10 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39D6F86D.68FDC438@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 10:40:13 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht References: <003f01c027e9$bec022e0$c4dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000929080523.00ab7730@127.0.0.1> <39D4AC63.FDC7F67D@village.uunet.be> <03zDNKAncc15Eww7@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: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > >The following should not be allowed: > >-asking both opponents (not allowed now in F2F, allowed in > >on-line) > > It is certainly not agreed that you can ask both oppos in online. > Many players think it is just unethical to do so. > It may well be "netiquette". Many players may believe it is unethical in the sense of tha laws. You and I know it is not so. There is nothing in the rules and regulations that prohibit it. I have not played on-line much, but I believe it is permitted to ask from either opponent. So you could ask from both. In F2F, it is regulated whom you should ask, so you cannot ask from both. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 1 23:48:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e91DmUp07457 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 23:48:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e91DmNt07453 for ; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 23:48:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d016.iae.nl [212.61.3.16]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id F2FD620F1D for ; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 15:48:16 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <004b01c02bae$6b8a3f20$10033dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <000201c02a6c$986eb2c0$38de36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <000b01c02b6e$759882a0$035408c3@dodona> <019101c02b89$d69b74c0$a86860cb@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] Not only humble, but umble. Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 15:45:44 +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 Let me put the facts in sequence: - The CC states: third hand bid can be weak. That is an agreement - The third hand bid 1D appeared to comprise 2 points. It is natural but less than 8 points so it is a HUM. If it is accepted as a psyche everybody is entitled to bid on third hand what he likes notwithstanding BSC, HUM and other regulations. - Grattan said: "A psychic bid that is required or protected by system is a BS." - Wayne said: "A psychic is not necessarily a convention. I think we are arriving again in a former discussion and both are saying the same. One says that a psychic bid is under certain circumstancies a convention. The other says that a psychic bid is not always a convention. Let us go back to: what is allowed on third hand. Is a HUM allowed on third hand? Is a HUM on third hand to be accepted as a psychic bid? Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Grattan Endicott" ; "BLML" Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2000 11:27 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Not only humble, but umble. > From: "Grattan Endicott" > To: "Peter Gill" ; "BLML" > Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2000 12:49 PM > Subject: [BLML] Not only humble, but umble. > > > > > > Grattan Endicott > > jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj > > "" With bated breath and whispering humbleness" > > (M.o.V.) > > eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Peter Gill > > To: BLML > > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 11:46 PM > > Subject: Re: [BLML] How to treat third hand opening agreements. > > > > > > > Ben Schelen wrote: > > > > > > > >1a Is the third hand agreement a BSC? > > > > > > no. > > > > > +=+ I was too precipitate in saying that BSCs > > only affect bids above the level of one. I have > > done some further research in the WBF Systems > > Policy. The water gets quite deep as I wade in. > > (1) A psychic bid that is required or > > protected by system is BS. > > I shall keep on with my barrage. > > A psychic is not necessarily a convention so I can not see how a > non-conventional psychic can ever be a BS Convention. > > It is nonsense. The law book defines convention so a necessary prerequisit > for a bid to be a Brown or Purple or poka dot Convention is that it is a > *convention*. > > > (2) If by agreement an opening bid at the > > one level may be made on a hand a K or more > > below average strength, the method is HUM. > > The case in point did not exhibit the conditions > > that would make it BS. However, if the practice > > developed to the point where an implicit PU > > was found to exist (that the bid might be seven > > points or less), it would be HUM. To expand > > this point, the PU is deemed to exist when the > > psychic action occurs sufficiently for the > > partner to be able "to take his awareness of the > > psychic possibilities into account, whether he > > does so or not" [WBFLC dictum]. > > So it would seem that if there is an agreement > > that requires a psychic to be made, or to protect > > a psychic action when it occurs, this is a BS > > convention; > > Not if it is not a convention. :-) > > >but if there is no such agreement and > > the psyches occur sufficiently to develop an > > implicit understanding, this is HUM. Now I am > > not sure whether this was the intention underlying > > the Systems Policy, but it certainly seems to be > > the effect of it as currently stated. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Only if you allow non-conventions to be conventions :-) > > 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Oct 2 00:38:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e91EZGP07492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 00:35:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e91EZ9t07488 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 00:35:10 +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 KAA02588 for ; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 10:35:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/NCF-Sun-Client) id KAA15304; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 10:35:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 10:35:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200010011435.KAA15304@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >I'm not stupid enough to try and take you on over TFLB, David, but if >you find the idea of expecting two answers to be unethical, your >target should be Tony Reus in the first instance, not those players >who may well be innocently following official OKBridge guidelines. > > >Brian. > This method of disclosure was in place long before Tony Reus. The main reason (so I remember) was that there was no director or process available in case there was MI. It was impossible to change a result aquired due to an infraction. Therefore, it was decided by osomosis (and lots of arguement on rgb) that the best way to correct MI was to (over?)protect your opponent. While this is no longer needed in OKbridge tournaments, overfull disclosure is now part of the culture of OKBridge. Tony (aka ac342 on OKBridge since 1994) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Oct 2 00:48:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e91Ej0507512 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 00:45:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e91Eiut07508 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 00:44:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot23.domain2.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id sa264750 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 00:42:13 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-006-p-217-152.tmns.net.au ([203.54.217.152]) by mail2.bigpond.com (Claudes-Energetic-MailRouter V2.9c 3/1176309); 02 Oct 2000 00:42:13 Message-ID: <019401c02b59$a124c880$98d936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 13:42:31 +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 >> Herman De Wael wrote: > >In F2F, it is regulated whom you should ask, so you cannot >ask from both. I have often wondered how the words in Law 20F1 should be interpreted. Quoting from Law 20F1: ".....any player .... may request a full explanation .... ; replies should normally be given by the partner of a player who made a call in question (see Law 75C)." The English Laws' Scope indicates that "should" is weaker than "shall" which is weaker than "must", but "should" is stronger than "does". Law 20F1 doesn't seem to prohibit asking both opponents under certain circumstances in F2F bridge. Herman, by "it is regulated", are you referring to another Law or are you indicating that the SO should regulate the details fo the F2F question-answering procedure? 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 Oct 2 01:00:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e91F03f07531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 01:00:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e91Exwt07523 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 00:59:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot23.domain2.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ca264786 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 00:53:08 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-006-p-217-152.tmns.net.au ([203.54.217.152]) by mail2.bigpond.com (Claudes-Wet-n-Wild-MailRouter V2.9c 3/1176955); 02 Oct 2000 00:53:06 Message-ID: <019501c02b5b$26e47aa0$98d936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 13:53:25 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: (one comment embedded by me) > > Screen Huddles - Reprise > > By David Stevenson, England > >There has been some discussion about my earlier article on >Screen Huddles [see below]. 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? OK, with both Davids in agreement and having read Eric Landau's eloquent summary, I am beginning to catch on that Screen Huddles are a positive move towards less "table feel" and better overall screen tempo. I have another question, procedural this time. How do Screen Huddles work in practice (for EW)? I believe that only NS may move the tray, EW not being allowed to move the tray. Has this principle (assuming it existed) been abandoned, or is W meant to do his Screen Huddle before passing 5D (scary IMO), or is there a written procedure (e.g use of a Stop Card?) in the Screen Regulations (are they online?) to prevent N moving the tray as soon as W passes 5D before W has had time for his intended Screen Huddle? If the procedure is not spelt out in the rules, then I am not surprised that Screen Huddling has not become popular yet. Semi-kidding: should a NPC sit his "Screen Huddle Specialists" NS, because it seems that it is easier for NS, who control the tray, to be the ones who delay the tray's movement? Peter Gill. David continued (his original Screen Huddle article follows too): >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 had written: >> >>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. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Oct 2 04:39:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e91Ic8507726 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 04:38:09 +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-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 e91Ibut07714 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 04:37:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13fnzj-0007DM-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 18:37:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 12:13:26 +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> <000a01c02ad3$0d6283c0$498c01d5@D457300> <001701c02b83$6331eba0$9a5908c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <001701c02b83$6331eba0$9a5908c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ The desired practice has not been adopted by players. Has it not? Do you mean that not only was I the only player in Maastricht with a 100% record [played two matches, won two matches] but also I was the only one introducing random hesitations? I assumed everyone was. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 2 04:39:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e91Ic9M07727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 04:38:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e91Ibut07715 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 04:37:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13fnzj-0007DL-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 18:37:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 12:10:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht References: <003f01c027e9$bec022e0$c4dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000929080523.00ab7730@127.0.0.1> <39D4AC63.FDC7F67D@village.uunet.be> <03zDNKAncc15Eww7@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brian Meadows wrote: >On Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:57:43 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > >>Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>>The following should not be allowed: >>>-asking both opponents (not allowed now in F2F, allowed in >>>on-line) >> >> It is certainly not agreed that you can ask both oppos in online. >>Many players think it is just unethical to do so. >> > >It has to be said that a significant percentage of OKBridge (by far >the largest online service) seem to feel entitled to two answers, at >least in my experience, and they have the backing of OKBridge's Chief >Tournament Director, Tony Reus, on this one. He has explicitly stated >on a number of occasions in the Spectator (OKBridge's e-mail magazine, >sent by default to all members who have registered a valid e-mail >address with OKBridge and who do do not decline the magazine) that >when an opponent asks a question of both players, both players should >answer. > >This isn't saying I agree with the practice (I don't), but given OKB's >published directives, I have to question the view that players who >expect two answers are unethical. When a player is following the >explicit written guidance of the CTD (whether that guidance is correct >or not is another matter) I don't think you can reasonably consider >that player to be unethical, even if you wouldn't dream of asking both >opponents yourself. > >The situation is due in part (at least IMHO) to OKBridge's practice >that you alert your own bids, with a private message to opponents >which is not visible to your partner. Partner alerts are a SMALL >minority on OKBridge, at least in my 5+ years experience of using the >service. Given self-alerts, which have significant advantages for >online bridge, it is at least unclear as to whether you direct a >question about the bidding to the bidder or to their partner. > >I'm not stupid enough to try and take you on over TFLB, David, but if >you find the idea of expecting two answers to be unethical, your >target should be Tony Reus in the first instance, not those players >who may well be innocently following official OKBridge guidelines. I stand by my answer [quoted above]. I also wonder whether Tuna actually said anything to disagree with it? What you have quoted does not disagree with it in any way. -- 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 Oct 2 04:39:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e91Ic7F07725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 04:38:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e91Ibut07713 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 04:37:56 +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 13fnzj-00034b-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 18:37:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 12:07:52 +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> <4.3.2.7.1.20000929080523.00ab7730@127.0.0.1> <39D4AC63.FDC7F67D@village.uunet.be> <03zDNKAncc15Eww7@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <001601c02b83$6246ef60$9a5908c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <001601c02b83$6246ef60$9a5908c3@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 >> It is certainly not agreed that you can ask both oppos in online. >> Many players think it is just unethical to do so. >> >+=+ Would it not work for each player to alert/explain >his own call on line - to both opponents but not partner? Yes, it would work, if people always did it, and if the explanations were always adequate. While more than one way is permitted, this certainly the preferred method. However, it often does not work this way, since players get it wrong, or are unintelligible, or something. -- 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 Oct 2 04:54:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e91IruP07769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 04:53:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f116.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.116]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e91Irpt07765 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 04:53:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 11:53:43 -0700 Received: from 172.131.89.157 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 01 Oct 2000 18:53:43 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.131.89.157] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Not only humble, but umble. Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 11:53:43 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Oct 2000 18:53:43.0405 (UTC) FILETIME=[EBB8A1D0:01C02BD8] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Wayne Burrows" >From: "Grattan Endicott" > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Peter Gill > > > Ben Schelen wrote: > > > > > > > >1a Is the third hand agreement a BSC? > > > > > > no. > > > > > +=+ I was too precipitate in saying that BSCs > > only affect bids above the level of one. I have > > done some further research in the WBF Systems > > Policy. The water gets quite deep as I wade in. > > (1) A psychic bid that is required or > > protected by system is BS. > >I shall keep on with my barrage. > >A psychic is not necessarily a convention so I can not see how a >non-conventional psychic can ever be a BS Convention. > >It is nonsense. The law book defines convention so a necessary prerequisit >for a bid to be a Brown or Purple or poka dot Convention is that it is a >*convention*. An agreement that third-in-hand always opens, regardless of the hand's ability to make a bid descriptive of itself, makes all 3rd seat openings conventions as the bid does not show high-card strength or length in the suit mentioned nor an explicit desire to play there. A psychic bid that has a control on it is messier. Whether or not it shows a desire to play in the suit named, etc., is unknown at the time the bid is made. But I think that's sufficient to call it a convention as well. -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 Oct 2 04:56:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e91IuWK07781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 04:56:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.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 e91IuQt07777 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 04:56:27 +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 <20001001185622.FSGD18111.mail.rdc1.md.home.com@cc283631-a.twsn1.md.home.com> for ; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 11:56:22 -0700 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 14:56:29 -0400 Message-ID: References: <200010011435.KAA15304@freenet10.carleton.ca> In-Reply-To: <200010011435.KAA15304@freenet10.carleton.ca> 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 Sun, 1 Oct 2000 10:35:01 -0400 (EDT), Tony Edwards wrote: > >>I'm not stupid enough to try and take you on over TFLB, David, but if >>you find the idea of expecting two answers to be unethical, your >>target should be Tony Reus in the first instance, not those players >>who may well be innocently following official OKBridge guidelines. >> >> >>Brian. >> >This method of disclosure was in place long before Tony Reus. The >main reason (so I remember) was that there was no director or >process available in case there was MI. It was impossible to >change a result aquired due to an infraction. Therefore, it was >decided by osomosis (and lots of arguement on rgb) that the best >way to correct MI was to (over?)protect your opponent. While this >is no longer needed in OKbridge tournaments, overfull disclosure is >now part of the culture of OKBridge. My recollection of that discussion was that it was more concerned with self-alerts vs. partner alerts, but I'll happily take your word for it that one partner answering vs. both partners answering also featured (I can't remember that personally). In any case, I still stick by the view that Tony Reus should be the target for any complaints, rather than the players who are following his directions. Brian. (member of OKBridge since very early in 1995). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Oct 2 05:31:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e91JUwZ07817 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 05:30:58 +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 (f66.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.66]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e91JUqt07813 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 05:30:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 12:30:44 -0700 Received: from 172.131.89.157 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 01 Oct 2000 19:30:44 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.131.89.157] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 12:30:44 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Oct 2000 19:30:44.0968 (UTC) FILETIME=[17E03E80:01C02BDE] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson >Brian Meadows wrote: > >On Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:57:43 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > > > >>Herman De Wael wrote: > >> > >>>The following should not be allowed: > >>>-asking both opponents (not allowed now in F2F, allowed in > >>>on-line) > >> > >> It is certainly not agreed that you can ask both oppos in online. > >>Many players think it is just unethical to do so. > >> >(snip) > > I stand by my answer [quoted above]. > > I also wonder whether Tuna actually said anything to disagree with it? >What you have quoted does not disagree with it in any way. Your statement may be true, but many players are wrong. Unethical is the wrong word for following the rules. Those players should start thinking that the rule is unfair. It would focus attention on a bad policy rather than denigrating the innocent players following 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 Mon Oct 2 06:25:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e91KPKW07869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 06:25:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from darius.concentric.net (darius.concentric.net [207.155.198.79]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e91KPDt07865 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 06:25:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from mcfeely.concentric.net (mcfeely.concentric.net [207.155.198.83]) by darius.concentric.net (8.9.1a/(98/12/15 5.12)) id QAA08764; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 16:25:02 -0400 (EDT) [1-800-745-2747 The Concentric Network] Received: from crc3.concentric.net (ts007d13.par-nj.concentric.net [216.112.169.73]) by mcfeely.concentric.net (8.9.1a) id QAA05564; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 16:24:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <011301c02be6$c8ae1c20$63ab70d8@concentric.net> From: "Art Hoffman" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <003f01c027e9$bec022e0$c4dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000929080523.00ab7730@127.0.0.1> <39D4AC63.FDC7F67D@village.uunet.be> <03zDNKAncc15Eww7@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 16:32:55 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk May I ask why you (or many players) think that asking both opponents to explain an alert when online is unethical? Thank you. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2000 7:10 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht > Brian Meadows wrote: > >On Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:57:43 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > > > >>Herman De Wael wrote: > >> > >>>The following should not be allowed: > >>>-asking both opponents (not allowed now in F2F, allowed in > >>>on-line) > >> > >> It is certainly not agreed that you can ask both oppos in online. > >>Many players think it is just unethical to do so. > >> > > > >It has to be said that a significant percentage of OKBridge (by far > >the largest online service) seem to feel entitled to two answers, at > >least in my experience, and they have the backing of OKBridge's Chief > >Tournament Director, Tony Reus, on this one. He has explicitly stated > >on a number of occasions in the Spectator (OKBridge's e-mail magazine, > >sent by default to all members who have registered a valid e-mail > >address with OKBridge and who do do not decline the magazine) that > >when an opponent asks a question of both players, both players should > >answer. > > > >This isn't saying I agree with the practice (I don't), but given OKB's > >published directives, I have to question the view that players who > >expect two answers are unethical. When a player is following the > >explicit written guidance of the CTD (whether that guidance is correct > >or not is another matter) I don't think you can reasonably consider > >that player to be unethical, even if you wouldn't dream of asking both > >opponents yourself. > > > >The situation is due in part (at least IMHO) to OKBridge's practice > >that you alert your own bids, with a private message to opponents > >which is not visible to your partner. Partner alerts are a SMALL > >minority on OKBridge, at least in my 5+ years experience of using the > >service. Given self-alerts, which have significant advantages for > >online bridge, it is at least unclear as to whether you direct a > >question about the bidding to the bidder or to their partner. > > > >I'm not stupid enough to try and take you on over TFLB, David, but if > >you find the idea of expecting two answers to be unethical, your > >target should be Tony Reus in the first instance, not those players > >who may well be innocently following official OKBridge guidelines. > > I stand by my answer [quoted above]. > > I also wonder whether Tuna actually said anything to disagree with it? > What you have quoted does not disagree with it in any way. > > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 2 06:25:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e91KPBo07863 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 06:25:11 +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-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 e91KP4t07858 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 06:25:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13fpfN-0004PP-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 21:25:00 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 20:09:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht References: <019501c02b5b$26e47aa0$98d936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <019501c02b5b$26e47aa0$98d936cb@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: (one comment embedded by me) >> >> Screen Huddles - Reprise >> >> By David Stevenson, England >> >>There has been some discussion about my earlier article on >>Screen Huddles [see below]. 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? > > >OK, with both Davids in agreement and having read Eric >Landau's eloquent summary, I am beginning to catch on that >Screen Huddles are a positive move towards less "table feel" >and better overall screen tempo. > >I have another question, procedural this time. How do Screen >Huddles work in practice (for EW)? > >I believe that only NS may move the tray, EW not being allowed >to move the tray. Has this principle (assuming it existed) been >abandoned, or is W meant to do his Screen Huddle before >passing 5D (scary IMO), or is there a written procedure (e.g >use of a Stop Card?) in the Screen Regulations (are they >online?) to prevent N moving the tray as soon as W passes >5D before W has had time for his intended Screen Huddle? Hold the bidding card above but not touching the tray seems an easy way. You really do not need a regulation for every little thing. If E/W want to stop the tray being passed, I am sure they can find a way. The two matches I played I delayed the tray a few times without difficulty and I was East or West [I do not remember which]. -- 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 Oct 2 06:37:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e91KarA07889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 06:36:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e91Kalt07885 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 06:36:47 +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 <20001001203642.HPDG18111.mail.rdc1.md.home.com@cc283631-a.twsn1.md.home.com> for ; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 13:36:42 -0700 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 16:36:49 -0400 Message-ID: <7a6fts8fmdackn183uhl29od37ootnd082@4ax.com> References: <003f01c027e9$bec022e0$c4dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000929080523.00ab7730@127.0.0.1> <39D4AC63.FDC7F67D@village.uunet.be> <03zDNKAncc15Eww7@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: 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 Sun, 1 Oct 2000 12:10:18 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >>> >>> It is certainly not agreed that you can ask both oppos in online. >>>Many players think it is just unethical to do so. >>> >> > > I stand by my answer [quoted above]. > I've left it there for reference. > I also wonder whether Tuna actually said anything to disagree with it? >What you have quoted does not disagree with it in any way. > No, Tuna has not said that it is not true that "many players think it is just unethical to do so." What he HAS said, and I will cut and paste the quotes from the Spectator if you want me to, is that players are entitled to ask both opponents for explanations, and both opponents are required to reply. Maybe the many players to whom you refer think Tuna is advocating unethical behaviour, which would lead to the question whether it can be unethical to follow the stated directions of the CTD? I thought it fair to note that your "many players" are in disagreement with OKBridge on this point. I try to speak only for myself, but it would not surprise me to learn that there are just as many people, if not more, who believe from having read the Spectator that they are in no way behaving unethically if they ask both opponents, and so long as OKB gives them that guidance, I think it is wrong to believe them unethical for doing so. Brian. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Oct 2 07:39:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e91LcQZ07945 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 07:38:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e91LcKt07941 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 07:38:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.58.95] (helo=D457300) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13fqoI-0007Me-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 01 Oct 2000 22:38:14 +0100 Message-ID: <001701c02bef$c4aca200$5f3a073e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Not only humble, but umble. Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 22:37:14 +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 Todd wrote: > An agreement that third-in-hand always opens, regardless of the hand's > ability to make a bid descriptive of itself, makes all 3rd seat openings > conventions as the bid does not show high-card strength or length in the > suit mentioned nor an explicit desire to play there. Not really. Suppose we agree that whenever I have 0-2 hcp, I will open my longest suit. Is this a convention? (Note: this is *not* the same as asking whether this is subject to regulation, or falls within the WBF's Brown Sticker or HUM definitions. Of course it is, and of course it does.) David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 2 07:43:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e91Lhnr07967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 07:43:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from neodymium.btinternet.com (neodymium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e91Lhht07963 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 07:43:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.58.95] (helo=D457300) by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13fqtW-0006Bl-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 01 Oct 2000 22:43:38 +0100 Message-ID: <002001c02bf0$85cca2a0$5f3a073e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: <003f01c027e9$bec022e0$c4dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <39D198BB.1361807C@mindspring.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000929080523.00ab7730@127.0.0.1> <000a01c02ad3$0d6283c0$498c01d5@D457300> <001701c02b83$6331eba0$9a5908c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 22:42:37 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > >+=+ The desired practice has not been adopted by players. > > Has it not? Do you mean that not only was I the only player in > Maastricht with a 100% record [played two matches, won two matches] but > also I was the only one introducing random hesitations? I assumed > everyone was. There were, by my calculations, about 1,000 players involved in the Olympiad and the Transnational Mixed Teams. Of these, I would say that perhaps 998 were not using random hesitations, though the figure may be slightly lower. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 2 07:57:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e91Lv0W07986 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 07:57:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e91Lurt07982 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 07:56:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from shields.demon.co.uk ([158.152.123.143] helo=default) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13fr6F-000G7d-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 21:56:47 +0000 From: "Patrick Shields" To: Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 22:56:35 +0100 Message-ID: <01c02bf2$77f07060$0100007f@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >On Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:57:43 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > >>Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>>The following should not be allowed: >>>-asking both opponents (not allowed now in F2F, allowed in >>>on-line) >> >> It is certainly not agreed that you can ask both oppos in online. >>Many players think it is just unethical to do so. > Couple of points from a recently joined lurker A) Memory problems and confusion over system may be an inevitable part of the game of bridge, but I don't believe it is what attracts people to the game, and if anything we ought to be trying to minimise its effect. Taking a strict stance on this question seems to be pushing in the wrong direction. It's not allowed in F2F because it's impractical, not because it's wrong. B) I have seen questions answered by both opponents indicate a complete misunderstanding, and the server at the table then skipping the board, since (with the many casual partnerships which appear on OKBridge) any pleasure from the result of the hand has just disappeared. This is an approach I'd like to support. Patrick Shields Cheltenham, England pj on 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 Mon Oct 2 10:01:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9200ZC08092 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 10:00:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f33.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9200Tt08088 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 10:00:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 17:00:21 -0700 Received: from 172.131.89.157 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 02 Oct 2000 00:00:21 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.131.89.157] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Not only humble, but umble. Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 17:00:21 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Oct 2000 00:00:21.0651 (UTC) FILETIME=[C1EE2E30:01C02C03] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "David Burn" >Todd wrote: > > An agreement that third-in-hand always opens, regardless of the >hand's > > ability to make a bid descriptive of itself, makes all 3rd seat >openings > > conventions as the bid does not show high-card strength or length in >the > > suit mentioned nor an explicit desire to play there. > >Not really. Suppose we agree that whenever I have 0-2 hcp, I will open >my longest suit. Is this a convention? (Note: this is *not* the same as >asking whether this is subject to regulation, or falls within the WBF's >Brown Sticker or HUM definitions. Of course it is, and of course it >does.) No, that is not a convention. It also doesn't look like a forced psych which was what I was replying about. What are you doing with 3-11 schmoints? If your agreement is to always open your longest suit, then your 3rd seat openings are not psychic. -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 Oct 2 14:44:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e924gv808303 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 14:42:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e924ght08299 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 14:42:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.237] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13fxR0-0006k1-00; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 05:42:39 +0100 Message-ID: <007901c02c2b$5e8404a0$345908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "David Burn" Cc: "William Schoder" , "Richard Grenside" , "Max Bavin" , "Grattan Endicott" , "Antonio Riccardi" , "Krzysztof Martens" References: <003f01c027e9$bec022e0$c4dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <39D198BB.1361807C@mindspring.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000929080523.00ab7730@127.0.0.1> <000a01c02ad3$0d6283c0$498c01d5@D457300> <001701c02b83$6331eba0$9a5908c3@dodona> <002001c02bf0$85cca2a0$5f3a073e@D457300> Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 05:43:08 +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 "I shall light a candle of understanding in thine heart, which shall not be put out." [Esdras] ----- Original Message ----- From: David Burn To: Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2000 10:42 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht > DWS wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > >+=+ The desired practice has not been adopted by players. > > > > Has it not? Do you mean that not only was I the only player in > > Maastricht with a 100% record [played two matches, won two matches] > but > > also I was the only one introducing random hesitations? I assumed > > everyone was. > > There were, by my calculations, about 1,000 players involved in the > Olympiad and the Transnational Mixed Teams. Of these, I would say that > perhaps 998 were not using random hesitations, though the figure may be > slightly lower. > +=+ Give or take twenty I go along with this, from the evidence produced by rulings and appeals of which I am aware, and some observation.. It should not mean that we give up trying - just a few successes and things could move. We need some Davids (various, and maybe one or two Goliaths) as role models. And I do feel the key is to retard the board varying amounts in situations that could call for judgement by one of the players; am I wrong about this? We could also look at restricting the benefit of rulings to a NOS that has consistently failed to conform to the regulation, whilst not letting the OS get away with use of UI. [?Kojak, Max, Antonio?] [Krzysztof do you have a 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 Mon Oct 2 15:47:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e925kwp08354 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 15:46:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e925kot08350 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 15:46:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.89] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13fyQu-00079G-00; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 06:46:37 +0100 Message-ID: <008701c02c34$4e321340$345908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Todd Zimnoch" , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Not only humble, but umble. Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 06:02:57 +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 "I shall light a candle of understanding in thine heart, which shall not be put out." [Esdras] ----- Original Message ----- From: Todd Zimnoch To: Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 1:00 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Not only humble, but umble. -------------- x -------------- > > > >Not really. Suppose we agree that whenever I have 0-2 hcp, I will open > >my longest suit. > > No, that is not a convention. It also doesn't look like a forced psych > which was what I was replying about. What are you doing with 3-11 > schmoints? If your agreement is to always open your longest suit, then your > 3rd seat openings are not psychic. > > -Todd ----------------- \x/ ----------------- +=+ Well, Todd, if one accepts your view, you are saying "This is not a psyche required by system" (which would be BS), you are saying "This is an agreement that an opening bid at the one level may be made on a hand a King or more below average strength" (which is HUM). I can see no reason to argue about it. On the other hand it does raise considerable questions affecting partnerships who make such third-in-hand openings frequently enough for partner to anticipate them (and be in a position "to take his awareness of psychic possibilities into account, whether he does so or not" - WBFLC definition of implicit PU in relation to psychic action). ~ 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 Oct 2 15:47:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e925knF08349 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 15:46:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e925kgt08344 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 15:46:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.89] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13fyQw-00079G-00; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 06:46:38 +0100 Message-ID: <008801c02c34$4f2dd860$345908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Patrick Shields" Cc: "bridge-laws" References: <01c02bf2$77f07060$0100007f@localhost> Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 06:39:55 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "I shall light a candle of understanding in thine heart, which shall not be put out." [Esdras] ----- Original Message ----- From: Patrick Shields To: Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2000 10:56 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht ----------------- \x/ ----------------- > Couple of points from a recently joined lurker > > A) Memory problems and confusion over system may be an inevitable part of > the game of bridge, but I don't believe it is what attracts people to the > game, and if anything we ought to be trying to minimise its effect. Taking a > strict stance on this question seems to be pushing in the wrong direction. > It's not allowed in F2F because it's impractical, not because it's wrong. > > B) I have seen questions answered by both opponents indicate a complete > misunderstanding, and the server at the table then skipping the board, since > (with the many casual partnerships which appear on OKBridge) any pleasure > from the result of the hand has just disappeared. This is an approach I'd > like to support. > > Patrick Shields > Cheltenham, England > pj on okbridge > +=+ First, welcome Patrick - I am pleased to see you here You probably grasp that we are close to producing a draft of International Laws for Online Bridge - which will then go to Online Game Providers* for their reactions, as it will have significance for the licensing of international tournaments. We are disposed to incorporate a Law 80E type mandate for matters that are affected by the differing capabilities and facilities of the software. We are also disposed to set standards for tournaments but to accept the practicality of less rigour in 'social play'. There has been some reluctance to the thought of both players answering as to a meaning, because it is thought the laws should stay as close to the Duplicate Laws as is within reason; there is some inclination to the idea of players alerting and explaining their own bids to both opponents (as though behind screens with only partner on the other side of the screen). It is not clear to me whether it is fact that players in general prefer that boards are killed when partners misunderstand each others calls, or has this just developed as custom and practice because no means has been developed of handling the occurrence? The highest profile discussion in M'cht concerned mismousing. It was agreed that mismousing a play of a card and mismousing a call should be treated alike. More than one principle was touted and we have to look at it again. Please feel free to comment; we are at the stage where the first draft is under review, following WBFLC discussions in Maastricht, and the next further step will then be consultation with OGPs*, so now is a good time to know players' thoughts. ~ 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 Oct 2 15:47:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e925lBv08360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 15:47:11 +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 e925l1t08356 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 15:47:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.89] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13fyQy-00079G-00; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 06:46:40 +0100 Message-ID: <008901c02c34$505a7180$345908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Art Hoffman" , "David Stevenson" , References: <003f01c027e9$bec022e0$c4dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000929080523.00ab7730@127.0.0.1> <39D4AC63.FDC7F67D@village.uunet.be> <03zDNKAncc15Eww7@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <011301c02be6$c8ae1c20$63ab70d8@concentric.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 06:46:57 +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 "I shall light a candle of understanding in thine heart, which shall not be put out." [Esdras] ----- Original Message ----- From: Art Hoffman To: David Stevenson ; Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2000 9:32 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht > May I ask why you (or many players) think that asking both opponents to > explain an alert when online is unethical? Thank you. > +=+ I don't know about 'unethical' - but arguably undesirable if the object is gain from an awareness of misbids and misunderstandings that are not revealed by the auction. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 2 17:49:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e927mEJ08473 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 17:48:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e927m7t08469 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 17:48:08 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id IAA06107 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 08:47:59 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 08:47 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] How to treat third hand opening agreements. 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: <002e01c02b95$027ad620$ca5608c3@dodona> -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Oct 2 18:45:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e928ihV08529 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:44:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e928ict08525 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:44:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.104.70]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20001002084929.XRPW1628747.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop>; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 21:49:29 +1300 Message-ID: <001801c02c4c$e7c41d60$466860cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "BLML" References: <000201c02a6c$986eb2c0$38de36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <000b01c02b6e$759882a0$035408c3@dodona> <019101c02b89$d69b74c0$a86860cb@laptop> <000201c02b9c$2bb74ee0$125608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Not only humble, but umble. Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 21:43:54 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 ----- > > > > > > +=+ I was too precipitate in saying that BSCs > > > only affect bids above the level of one. I have > > > done some further research in the WBF Systems > > > Policy. The water gets quite deep as I wade in. > > > (1) A psychic bid that is required or > > > protected by system is BS. > > > > I shall keep on with my barrage. > > > > A psychic is not necessarily a convention so I can not see how a > > non-conventional psychic can ever be a BS Convention. > > > > It is nonsense. The law book defines convention so a necessary > prerequisit > > for a bid to be a Brown or Purple or poka dot Convention is that it is a > > *convention*. > > > +==++ Oh, come on, Wayne..... you are not reading > what I have written. Yes I am and I did wonder but you wrote this under an initial paragraph in which you said that you were too 'precipitate in saying that "BSC" ...' (additional emphasis mine WB) >I wrote 'BS', not 'BSC'. Please > return to square one and miss a turn whilst reading > this extract: > "The following conventions or treatments are > categorised as 'Brown Sticker': Okay but ... the trouble is that their is no right to regulate treatments :-) . So in law the regulations can only apply to conventions and light initial actions. > -------- > (h) Psychic bids protected by system or required > by system. > ---------------------- etc. " ++==+ > > > > > (2) If by agreement an opening bid at the > > > one level may be made on a hand a K or more > > > below average strength, the method is HUM. > > > The case in point did not exhibit the conditions > > > that would make it BS. However, if the practice > > > developed to the point where an implicit PU > > > was found to exist (that the bid might be seven > > > points or less), it would be HUM. To expand > > > this point, the PU is deemed to exist when the > > > psychic action occurs sufficiently for the > > > partner to be able "to take his awareness of the > > > psychic possibilities into account, whether he > > > does so or not" [WBFLC dictum]. > > > So it would seem that if there is an agreement > > > that requires a psychic to be made, or to protect > > > a psychic action when it occurs, this is a BS > > > convention; > > > > Not if it is not a convention. :-) > > > +=+ Agreed. The word should have been 'treatment' > - we have tended to talk in shorthand, but by all > means let us be accurate. The category is 'Brown > Sticker' and it can apply to either a convention or > a treatment. +=+ Not allowed sorry there is no decree that in general non-conventional treatments can be regulated. > > > > >but if there is no such agreement and > > > the psyches occur sufficiently to develop an > > > implicit understanding, this is HUM. Now I am > > > not sure whether this was the intention underlying > > > the Systems Policy, but it certainly seems to be > > > the effect of it as currently stated. > > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > Only if you allow non-conventions to be conventions :-) > > > +=+ or treatments; and if a treatment means > that an opening bid may be made on a K or more less > than... etc. etc., it may be regulated. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Sure but not all psyches have a King or more less than ... etc The regulators can huff and puff as much as they like but they can not touch those. And if their intention is to regulate the light openings then I think that they need to look at a re-wording because IMO when the regulation says psyche I do not see this as being synonymous with light openings. A regulation to restrict psyches is an attempt to do just that and has no basis in law and is quite a different thing than a regulation to restrict light openings which are *not* psyches. 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 Oct 2 18:52:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e928q6H08543 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:52:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e928q2t08539 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:52:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.104.70]) by mta5-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20001002085413.DUCM2245303.mta5-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 21:54:13 +1300 Message-ID: <001c01c02c4d$f1140960$466860cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "bridge-laws" References: <000201c02a6c$986eb2c0$38de36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <000b01c02b6e$759882a0$035408c3@dodona> <019101c02b89$d69b74c0$a86860cb@laptop> <004b01c02bae$6b8a3f20$10033dd4@default> Subject: Re: [BLML] Not only humble, but umble. Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 21:51:20 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 > Let me put the facts in sequence: > - The CC states: third hand bid can be weak. > That is an agreement > - The third hand bid 1D appeared to comprise 2 points. > It is natural but less than 8 points so it is a HUM. > If it is accepted as a psyche everybody is entitled to bid on third hand > what he likes notwithstanding BSC, HUM and other regulations. > - Grattan said: "A psychic bid that is required or protected by system is > a BS." > - Wayne said: "A psychic is not necessarily a convention. > > I think we are arriving again in a former discussion and both are saying the > same. > One says that a psychic bid is under certain circumstancies a convention. > The other says that a psychic bid is not always a convention. > Let us go back to: what is allowed on third hand. > Is a HUM allowed on third hand? Depends on the event and the regulations. > Is a HUM on third hand to be accepted as a psychic bid? I can't see this. It is either a part of the pairs agreement in which it is subject to the relevent (and hopefully legal - but I wouldn't advise holding your breath on this one) regulations or it is a gross distortion of the pairs' agreements and it is a psyche. There is no overlap. Although one could agree to play a HUM and then subsequently psyche such a bid (assuming that it is legal to psyche a HUM under the regulations). I think it is where I play only strong and multi conventions are subject to regulations that do not permit a psyche from memory. 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 Oct 2 18:56:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e928uGa08555 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:56:16 +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 (f161.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.161]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e928uAt08551 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:56:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 01:56:02 -0700 Received: from 172.131.66.238 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 02 Oct 2000 08:56:02 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.131.66.238] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Not only humble, but umble. Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 01:56:02 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Oct 2000 08:56:02.0871 (UTC) FILETIME=[97972470:01C02C4E] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Grattan Endicott" >----- Original Message ----- >From: Todd Zimnoch >-------------- x -------------- > > >Not really. Suppose we agree that whenever I have 0-2 hcp, I will > > >open my longest suit. > > > > No, that is not a convention. It also doesn't look like a > > forced psych > > which was what I was replying about. What are you doing with 3-11 > > schmoints? If your agreement is to always open your longest suit, > > then your 3rd seat openings are not psychic. > > > > -Todd >----------------- \x/ ----------------- >+=+ Well, Todd, if one accepts your view, you are >saying "This is not a psyche required by system" >(which would be BS), you are saying "This is an >agreement that an opening bid at the one level >may be made on a hand a King or more below >average strength" (which is HUM). > I can see no reason to argue about it. As far as forced psyches, the bid need not be an opening bid nor at the one level, so the second situation may not apply. So I don't see where the power to regulate exists unless they are, in fact, conventions. I was completely lost by your previous post regarding treatments. Regulation of treatments oversteps the bounds of 40D. >On >the other hand it does raise considerable >questions affecting partnerships who make such >third-in-hand openings frequently enough for >partner to anticipate them (and be in a >position "to take his awareness of psychic >possibilities into account, whether he does so >or not" - WBFLC definition of implicit PU in >relation to psychic action). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I think this is tangential. If the partnership could (everyone seems to ban this anyways) announce "auctions will never be passed out, 3rd or 4th seat will psych if necessary to keep the auction open" and maintain the psyches randomly enough so as not to carry any information, then no PU can form. The tendency to psych is disclosed and the psyches themselves have no meaning. Is this ban legal and if so why? I maintain that bids under this sort of agreement would be conventional and bannable under 40D. This brings me back to Wayne's point, which I agree with, but think he missed the mark here with respect to forced psyches, that unless it's a convention, it can't be brown sticker. (and the exception for openings at the one level with less than a king under average....) -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 Oct 2 19:02:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9292kt08573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:02:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9292gt08569 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:02:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.104.70]) by mta6-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20001002090553.KSNZ1192841.mta6-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop>; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 22:05:53 +1300 Message-ID: <003801c02c4f$6e93ea80$466860cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Todd Zimnoch" , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Not only humble, but umble. Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 22:02:00 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 ----- > > An agreement that third-in-hand always opens, regardless of the hand's > ability to make a bid descriptive of itself, makes all 3rd seat openings > conventions as the bid does not show high-card strength or length in the > suit mentioned nor an explicit desire to play there. The law does not say "explicit desire" but merely "willingness". IMO this is quite a different thing. I once psyched by overcalling in my void - I was willing to play there in fact even when my partner raised to the three level I was willing to play there. This was evidenced by my pass of that bid - didn't have enough to go on to game :-) . In fact I would have rather enjoyed writing in -350 in the column of -450's having taken the same two tricks offensively as we could have cashed defensively. Sadly, the greedy opponent doubled and I ran to my side seven card suit and improved my score, but not my satisfaction, to -100. > A psychic bid that has a control on it is messier. Whether or not it > shows a desire to play in the suit named, etc., is unknown at the time the > bid is made. But I think that's sufficient to call it a convention as well. > How do you get to this from the definition? 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 Oct 2 19:03:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e92933Y08585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:03:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9292tt08575 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:02:55 +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 <20001002090250.VEUW18111.mail.rdc1.md.home.com@cc283631-a.twsn1.md.home.com> for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 02:02:50 -0700 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 05:02:57 -0400 Message-ID: <1kjgtson23qg4ppeq9qv826o0158pehc8g@4ax.com> References: <01c02bf2$77f07060$0100007f@localhost> <008801c02c34$4f2dd860$345908c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <008801c02c34$4f2dd860$345908c3@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, 2 Oct 2000 06:39:55 +0100, Grattan wrote: > Please feel free to comment; we are at the stage >where the first draft is under review, following WBFLC >discussions in Maastricht, and the next further step will >then be consultation with OGPs*, so now is a good time >to know players' thoughts. If you want to know online players' thoughts, might I ask where this first draft can be found? If a URL has been posted on BLML, then I for one have missed it. Brian. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Oct 2 19:03:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9293Sj08598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:03:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9293Mt08594 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:03:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.175.13] (helo=D457300) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13g1VD-00036v-00; Mon, 02 Oct 2000 10:03:15 +0100 Message-ID: <002101c02c4f$76c2f2a0$0daf01d5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: Cc: "William Schoder" , "Richard Grenside" , "Max Bavin" , "Grattan Endicott" , "Antonio Riccardi" , "Krzysztof Martens" References: <003f01c027e9$bec022e0$c4dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <39D198BB.1361807C@mindspring.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000929080523.00ab7730@127.0.0.1> <000a01c02ad3$0d6283c0$498c01d5@D457300> <001701c02b83$6331eba0$9a5908c3@dodona> <002001c02bf0$85cca2a0$5f3a073e@D457300> <007901c02c2b$5e8404a0$345908c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 10:02:12 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: David Burn > To: > Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2000 10:42 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht > > There were, by my calculations, about 1,000 players involved in the > > Olympiad and the Transnational Mixed Teams. Of these, I would say that > > perhaps 998 were not using random hesitations, though the figure may be > > slightly lower. > > > +=+ Give or take twenty I go along with this, from > the evidence produced by rulings and appeals of > which I am aware, and some observation. It should > not mean that we give up trying - just a few > successes and things could move. We need some > Davids (various, and maybe one or two Goliaths) as > role models. And I do feel the key is to retard > the board varying amounts in situations that could > call for judgement by one of the players; am I > wrong about this? DWS mentioned a remark by Woolsey that certain auctions are "tempo-sensitive"; I recall that Goldman drew attention to this issue also some time ago. Whereas this is true, I think it would be hard to make a regulation that said: "You only need to vary the tempo in auctions of a certain type". Since most auctions are not of this type, players will easily resume their old habit of moving the tray when it's ready to be moved; then, when a tempo-sensitive auction happens, they will have forgotten about the need to vary the tempo of moving the tray. At least to begin with, if we're going to use this procedure, we should try to make it apply to all auctions. Of course, this creates another problem. Play with screens is slow enough as it is, and the time allowance (2 hours and 50 minutes for 20 boards) reflects this. If we introduce this measure, we are going to need to increase the time allowance to what seem to me absurd limits. The average auction lasts for about three rounds of bidding, with the tray passing from side to side six times. If it spends an extra ten seconds on each side, this will add a minute to the time taken to play each board, and twenty minutes to the time for a round robin match. A three-match day will take a full hour of extra playing time; a four-segment day will become almost impossible (without starting earlier and getting rid of that insane two-hour "break" before the final session). Come to think of it, this sounds like a splendid idea... > We could also look at restricting the benefit > of rulings to a NOS that has consistently failed to > conform to the regulation, whilst not letting the > OS get away with use of UI. [?Kojak, Max, > Antonio?] [Krzysztof do you have a view?] Unless you have monitors at every table, this is going to be very hard to implement fairly. Mind you, I think that in the initial stages you might need monitors at every table anyway, which will add greatly to the number of people you need to run an event. The job can't be performed by the recorder, who has more than enough to do while the auction is going on. Of course, you could solve this and a whole host of other problems by introducing chess clocks to the table. But no one, surely, is going to suggest anything as sensible as that. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 2 19:34:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e929Xt908623 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:33:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e929Xmt08619 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:33:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-37.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.37]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA08053 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 11:33:43 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39D774EA.D231795C@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 19:31:22 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht References: <019401c02b59$a124c880$98d936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: > > >> Herman De Wael wrote: > > > >In F2F, it is regulated whom you should ask, so you cannot > >ask from both. > > I have often wondered how the words in Law 20F1 should be > interpreted. Quoting from Law 20F1: > > ".....any player .... may request a full explanation .... ; replies > should normally be given by the partner of a player who made > a call in question (see Law 75C)." > > The English Laws' Scope indicates that "should" is weaker > than "shall" which is weaker than "must", but "should" is > stronger than "does". > > Law 20F1 doesn't seem to prohibit asking both opponents under > certain circumstances in F2F bridge. Herman, by "it is regulated", > are you referring to another Law or are you indicating that the > SO should regulate the details fo the F2F question-answering > procedure? > No I am not. Indeed I am only referring to current practice. Since there are UI issues, it is not common to ask bidder, nor would he be obliged to respond. The whole issue is rather vague in the Laws. Which is of course correct, since the Laws must deal with more possibilities than just the one. Screens are one such possibility. Maybe there ought to be more clear regulations for each and every type of bridge. Including F2F. But then it is imperative that we get the philosophy right, in the sense that the technical issues should not interfere (too much) with the nature of the game. Which is where my type regulation comes in : "a player may search the information about opponents' system from one source, and one source only - only when that one source of information is incomplete is he allowed to ask from a second source." -- 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 Oct 2 21:14:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e92BDlU08728 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 21:13:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e92BDet08724 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 21:13:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13g3XI-000H7K-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 12:13:33 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 02:52:07 +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$c4dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000929080523.00ab7730@127.0.0.1> <39D4AC63.FDC7F67D@village.uunet.be> <03zDNKAncc15Eww7@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <011301c02be6$c8ae1c20$63ab70d8@concentric.net> In-Reply-To: <011301c02be6$c8ae1c20$63ab70d8@concentric.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Art Hoffman wrote: >May I ask why you (or many players) think that asking both opponents to >explain an alert when online is unethical? Thank you. I am very sorry, but you will have to ask them. I don't think it is unethical, but I think it is often sharp practice. It depends really on the intent. With OLB you get communication problems. If you ask both oppos because you are having difficulty getting answers that seems fair enough to me. On the other hand, if you ask both oppos to try to get an advantage if they explain differently then you are trying to win at the game by other means than your skill and judgement. That feels like sharp practice to me, and I expect is why many people believe it to be unethical. >> >On Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:57:43 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >> >> It is certainly not agreed that you can ask both oppos in online. >> >>Many players think it is just unethical to do so. -- 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 Oct 2 22:10:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e92CAAu08826 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 22:10:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e92CA4t08822 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 22:10:04 +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 e92CbPL54612 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 08:37:25 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20001002074149.00ab3760@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 08:11:46 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Alerts In-Reply-To: <007401c0297c$2cd64fa0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000928085115.00a98ae0@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 02:39 PM 9/28/00, Marvin wrote: >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." Because Truebridge uses a baseline system, it has little resemblence to what Classic Bridge was supposed to be. Classic would have looked like this... >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. ...and that's it. The committee was expected to (and should have) come up with a list of conventions such as Marv suggests, No others would be allowed, and there would be no alerting. You would not be required to play any of the conventions on the list. But no, the committee decided they needed a "baseline system", and, from that moment, the concept was doomed. >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. In Classic, the participants would have the freedom to play non-conventional methods of their choice. They could choose weak or strong notrumps, four- or five-card majors, 2/1 game forcing, or promising a rebid, or not, etc. It would have offered the benefits of simplicity without the dullness of total homogeneity. >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. I can see where novices might like and/or benefit from Truebridge as a learning experience, but it would be, IMO, too radically different from what they will (we hope) eventually encounter in the "real" game to be all that useful -- not so much because of the particular methods Marv chose, but because of the "unreality" of encountering exactly the same opposing system at every table. Classic, as originally conceived, was never intended to be some kind of "refuge" for novices, but rather a game that all levels of players, from novice to expert, could enjoy together. >Advancement would not be >permitted until a player has demonstrated that s/he is ready for the >next level. That, IMO, is a huge mistake. Low-level players who don't want to be "coddled" in the low-level games but would prefer to "mix it up" with the "big boys and girls" in the "real" games must not only be allowed, but should be enthusiastically encouraged, to do so. >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. I think a Truebridge NABC event would be seen as just one more attempt in the tradition of Yellow Card and Classic events, and would meet the same fate. Whereas something along the lines of the original Classic concept would be different enough that it would be worth a try, and might just succeed. 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 Oct 2 22:24:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e92CO4M08865 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 22:24:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e92CNst08861 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 22:23:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-156.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.156]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA10955 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 14:23:44 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39D867B9.1899A1E0@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 12:47:21 +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] Not only humble, but umble. References: <001701c02bef$c4aca200$5f3a073e@D457300> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > > Not really. Suppose we agree that whenever I have 0-2 hcp, I will open > my longest suit. Is this a convention? (Note: this is *not* the same as > asking whether this is subject to regulation, or falls within the WBF's > Brown Sticker or HUM definitions. Of course it is, and of course it > does.) > > David Burn > London, England > This question illustrates the problem very well. The word convention is used in two places in the Law book. First to indicate whether or not this can be regulated. In that sense, the question is moot, as light openings are also regulatable. Secondly to indicate whether or not the bid, if done insufficiently, can be corrected without penalty. In that sense, the "feeling" is that it is not conventional. I believe the definition of conventional is not helpful, since the word conventional is used in two places, and with totally different intent. -- 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 Oct 2 22:54:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e92Crb108910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 22:53:37 +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 e92CrVt08906 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 22:53:32 +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 e92CrRH63613 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 08:53:27 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20001002084552.00aba4a0@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, 02 Oct 2000 08:55:15 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] ACBL Alerts In-Reply-To: <000e01c02a16$e6fc10a0$23c3e080@isi.com> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000929085021.00a9a200@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 09:12 AM 9/29/00, Richard wrote: >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. This is a difficult concept, and seems confusion-prone. Consider 1NT-P-3C. Pair 1 defines this as "semi-solid six-card suit, no outside strength". Pair 2 defines this as "semi-solid six-card suit, about an ace or equivalent on the side". Are these pairs playing the same thing? Would at least one of these treatments require an alert? Try again. 1NT-P-3C. Pair 1, who are playing 16-18 1NT, define this as "semi-solid six-card suit, game-invitational values". Pair 2, who are playing 12-14 1NT, define this as "semi-solid six-card suit, game-invitational values". Are these pairs playing the same thing? Would at least one of these treatments require an alert? 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 Oct 2 23:18:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e92DIDb08951 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 23:18:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e92DI7t08947 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 23:18:07 +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 e92DI2574404 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 09:18:03 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20001002090721.00a9ac40@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, 02 Oct 2000 09:19:51 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht In-Reply-To: <39D4AC63.FDC7F67D@village.uunet.be> References: <003f01c027e9$bec022e0$c4dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000929080523.00ab7730@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 10:51 AM 9/29/00, Herman wrote: >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. Correct; one does not have the right to the knowledge that opponents are having a misunderstanding. But one does, now (by L73D1, except where it has been abridged under L80E, my original point being that this is not ideal, but rather a practical compromise with reality), and should (if possible in practice), have the right to observe one's opponents and, if one judges that they are likely to be having a misunderstanding, to choose one's actions accordingly, at one's own risk, with, of course, no redress if one has made a false assumption. These are not at all the same thing. One can make the case that if we take away the latter, bridge would be a better game (although I would disagree), but cannot reasonably argue that it would not be a very different 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 Mon Oct 2 23:47:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e92DlRh08982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 23:47:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e92DlHt08977 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 23:47:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.0.ap (guppy)) id PAA22111; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 15:45:33 +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 PAA08841; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 15:47:07 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001002155713.00892cf0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 15:57:13 +0200 To: Herman De Wael , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Not only humble, but umble. In-Reply-To: <39D867B9.1899A1E0@village.uunet.be> References: <001701c02bef$c4aca200$5f3a073e@D457300> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:47 2/10/00 +0200, you wrote: > >This question illustrates the problem very well. > >The word convention is used in two places in the Law book. > AG : nope. It is used thrice. The third occurrence, or rather the first, is in the 'definitions', Chapter I. It is explicitly stated there that strength is not a relevant factor in deciding whether a bid is conventional or not. So, the answer is a firm no : RothStonish systematic long-suit psyches are not conventional (and thence law 271a applies). They might still be deemed (pre-)alertable, however, since the standard for alertability is *not* conventionalness, but unexpectableness, whatever the BoD might think. (whow ! who said English is made of short words ?) Regards, A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 2 23:47:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e92DlrE08994 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 23:47:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e92Dlit08984 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 23:47:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4rn.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.119]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA19915; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 09:47:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000e01c02c77$df2ef1e0$7713f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Alerts Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 09:51:29 -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 Eric L wrote: Low-level players who don't want to be >"coddled" in the low-level games but would prefer to "mix it up" with the >"big boys and girls" in the "real" games must not only be allowed, but >should be enthusiastically encouraged, to do so. > This is something that should be etched into the minds of everyone who wants to attract new bridge players. They are not 6 year olds. They are capable adults who have had success in many fields of endeavour. They do not need to be given pablum and baby talk, and may be insulted by it. They must be treated with respect, as befits them as people, not with the condescension with which novices are ofter regarded. And those stalwart few who are willing to take their lumps and play up (or those who refuse to act intimidated in the its-the-only-game-in-town stratified) deserve especial encouragement, for they are the future of the "real" game. For all the brilliance of Audrey Grant and Edith McMullin, it is sometimes considered that those new to are game are in some wise inferior beings rather than just inexperienced ones. That is an error we make at our peril, for we may easily lose excellent potential friends as well as fine future competitors or even partners by looking down at them while they are getting their feet wet. Well said, Eric! Craig Senior -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 3 00:41:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e92EfDY09049 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 00:41:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e92Ef7t09045 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 00:41:08 +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 e92Ef2T03519 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 10:41:03 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20001002102536.00b6d9f0@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, 02 Oct 2000 10:42:51 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Not only humble, but umble. 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 04:56 AM 10/2/00, Todd wrote: >>From: "Grattan Endicott" >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: Todd Zimnoch >>-------------- x -------------- >> > >Not really. Suppose we agree that whenever I have 0-2 hcp, I will >> > >open my longest suit. >> > >> > No, that is not a convention. It also doesn't look like a >> > forced psych >> > which was what I was replying about. What are you doing with 3-11 >> > schmoints? If your agreement is to always open your longest suit, >> > then your 3rd seat openings are not psychic. >> > >> > -Todd >>----------------- \x/ ----------------- >>+=+ Well, Todd, if one accepts your view, you are >>saying "This is not a psyche required by system" >>(which would be BS), you are saying "This is an >>agreement that an opening bid at the one level >>may be made on a hand a King or more below >>average strength" (which is HUM). >> I can see no reason to argue about it. > > As far as forced psyches, the bid need not be an opening bid nor at > the one level, so the second situation may not apply. So I don't see > where the power to regulate exists unless they are, in fact, > conventions. I was completely lost by your previous post regarding > treatments. Regulation of treatments oversteps the bounds of 40D. > >>On >>the other hand it does raise considerable >>questions affecting partnerships who make such >>third-in-hand openings frequently enough for >>partner to anticipate them (and be in a >>position "to take his awareness of psychic >>possibilities into account, whether he does so >>or not" - WBFLC definition of implicit PU in >>relation to psychic action). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > I think this is tangential. If the partnership could (everyone seems > to ban this anyways) announce "auctions will never be passed out, 3rd or > 4th seat will psych if necessary to keep the auction open" and maintain > the psyches randomly enough so as not to carry any information, then no > PU can form. The tendency to psych is disclosed and the psyches > themselves have no meaning. Is this ban legal and if so why? I maintain > that bids under this sort of agreement would be conventional and bannable > under 40D. This brings me back to Wayne's point, which I agree with, but > think he missed the mark here with respect to forced psyches, that unless > it's a convention, it can't be brown sticker. (and the exception for > openings at the one level with less than a king under average....) It seems to me that this discussion has become mired in semantic confusion, because some of us are using some particular terms rather loosely, expecting their meanings to be understood from their context. Let us understand that: Strictly speaking, phrases like "forced psych" or "mandatory psych" are self-contradictory. These are systemic actions, whereas psychs are, by definition, counter-systemic actions. We use the terms as shorthand for "actions that would be psychs in systems which don't explicitly provide for them, but which are systemic rather than psychic in the particular system we are discussing". When the context of the discussion is what SOs may or may not regulate, or how they may legally regulate them, we may use the word "conventions" as a convenient shorthand for "conventions or partnership understandings that permit initial actions at the one level to be made with a hand of a King or more below average strength", i.e. "understandings covered by L40D". If we understand that some of us are using these terms in this loose and non-literal manner, some of us may just discover that we disagree at lot less with some of what has been said in this discussion than we might otherwise think. 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 Oct 3 01:00:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e92ExpT09075 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 00:59:51 +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-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 e92Exit09071 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 00:59:45 +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 e92Exf581929 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 10:59:41 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20001002104839.00b792e0@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, 02 Oct 2000 11:01:29 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Not only humble, but umble. In-Reply-To: <003801c02c4f$6e93ea80$466860cb@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 05:02 AM 10/2/00, Wayne wrote: >The law does not say "explicit desire" but merely "willingness". IMO this >is quite a different thing. > >I once psyched by overcalling in my void - I was willing to play there in >fact even when my partner raised to the three level I was willing to play >there. This was evidenced by my pass of that bid - didn't have enough to go >on to game :-) . In fact I would have rather enjoyed writing in -350 in the >column of -450's having taken the same two tricks offensively as we could >have cashed defensively. Sadly, the greedy opponent doubled and I ran to my >side seven card suit and improved my score, but not my satisfaction, >to -100. A good example, which demonstates the key point that "willingness" does not necessarily mean "belief that the contract cannot be improved", but may instead be based on purely tactical considerations which have nothing to do with one's evaluation of the likelihood of making the last-named contract (or going down less than in any reachable alternative contract). But we do need some terminology that distinguishes between Wayne's "willingness" to play a contract with a void for tactical reasons and what others have called "willingness" to play a contract with a void because partner may, by agreement, pass one's artificial void-showing bid with eight cards in the suit. 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 Oct 3 01:17:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e92FGtf09104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 01:16:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e92FGmt09100 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 01:16:49 +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 RAA10082; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 17:16:20 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id RAA13473; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 17:16:35 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001002172643.007d0940@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 17:26:43 +0200 To: "Craig Senior" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Alerts In-Reply-To: <000e01c02c77$df2ef1e0$7713f7a5@oemcomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:51 2/10/00 -0400, you wrote: > Low-level players who don't want to be "coddled" in the low-level games but would prefer to "mix it up" with the >>"big boys and girls" in the "real" games must not only be allowed, but >>should be enthusiastically encouraged, to do so. AG : great idea, but in Belgium it seems not to be working very well (at least in the French-speaking part of the country) : new players are very reluctant to intermix with experts in tournaments. We had numerous brainstormings about the reasons for this. Do they fear being verbally abused ? Possibly, but how could they know this sometimes happens ? Do they fear ridicule ? Some have stated it so. Or perhaps they wouldn't like to see their money be packed every time by the same people ? This should be taken into account, since evening tournaments are usually about 3.60 $ -6 $ entry fee (half of which is given back), while in the Dutch-speaking North they usually are 2.40. Is this enough difference to explain differing attitudes ? My first-choice explanation would be that many would prefer to play first fiddle in their own village than second in Rome. Ego-boosting and all that. 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 Oct 3 01:51:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e92FpDD09140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 01:51:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hermes.isi.com (hermes.isi.com [192.73.222.27]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e92Fp6t09136 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 01:51:07 +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 IAA10938 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 08:52:46 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard Willey" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: RE: [BLML] ACBL Alerts Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 11:54:28 -0400 Message-ID: <000d01c02c89$0beb8520$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: <4.3.2.7.1.20001002084552.00aba4a0@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 > Try again. 1NT-P-3C. Pair 1, who are playing 16-18 1NT, > define this as > "semi-solid six-card suit, game-invitational values". Pair > 2, who are > playing 12-14 1NT, define this as "semi-solid six-card suit, > game-invitational values". Are these pairs playing the same > thing? I believe that the systematic meaning of the 3C call is the same. 3C shows a single suit hand with 6+ clubs. The bid invites partner to invite 3N with a suitable hand. The set of hands that qualifies for the 3C call might be dramatically different if one were playing a 12-14 NT as opposed to a 16-18 NT. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOdivs7FdMFbo8dHHEQIvpwCgq+LtdpPm49spOjBZ8tqBxZQ8FscAn3WJ E/tsfjvI647L8NoShtMjg/+G =ceBz -----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 Oct 3 03:27:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e92HR8C09248 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 03:27:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e92HR2t09244 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 03:27:03 +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, 2 Oct 2000 10:27:17 -0700 Message-ID: <029f01c02c95$d1df5e80$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] L24 and ACBLLC Minutes Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 10:25:38 -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 In the October 2000 edition of *The Bridge World* my letter to the editor ("Who Controls the Laws?") included an example of the ACBL's failure to comply with L24, which gives declarer the right to decide whether a card exposed during the auction will be treated as a penalty card during the play. ACBL TDs had been instructed to make the decision themselves, in the belief (someone explained to me) that a declarer might do a favor for a friend if given that opportunity. We had a BLML thread on this unimportant matter some time ago. Unimportant in itself, that is, but important when considering that a ZA is willing to ignore one of the Laws. That letter was actually written perhaps six months ago, taking a while to make its way to the top of the BW backlog. Meanwhile, the ACBLLC has acted on the matter. This is a letter I have sent to *The Bridge World* as a follow-up: To the Editor: My recent letter stated that ACBL Directors are not letting a declarer decide whether a card exposed during the auction is to be a penalty card during the play, a right provided by Law 24. The ACBL Laws Commission (ACBLLC) has discussed the matter, with the result that ACBL Directors have been notified to extend this option to the declarer instead of requiring that the exposed card become a penalty card for play. Of greater importance is the news that all minutes of ACBLLC meetings, starting with the most recent and working backwards, will soon be published on the ACBL Web site. Interpretations rising out of these meetings have not been well-disseminated in the past, even though they carry the force of law. Now players and Directors will know of them in a timely manner, not only for compliance but for the opportunity to comment on them. _____________________________________________________ The only other example of ACBL non-compliance with the Laws that comes to mind is of like unimportance. ACBL TDs permit a defender to point out to partner that s/he has turned a card in the wrong direction during the play. Violation of L73A1 perhaps, an improper communication with partner? I think so. 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 Oct 3 04:22:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e92IMHg09294 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 04:22:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e92IM9t09290 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 04:22:10 +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 ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 11:22:24 -0700 Message-ID: <02b501c02c9d$84f7e4e0$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> <4.3.2.7.1.20001002074149.00ab3760@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Alerts Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 11:20:57 -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 Eric Landau wrote: > I can see where novices might like and/or benefit from Truebridge as a > learning experience, but it would be, IMO, too radically different from > what they will (we hope) eventually encounter in the "real" game to be all > that useful -- not so much because of the particular methods Marv chose, > but because of the "unreality" of encountering exactly the same opposing > system at every table. Classic, as originally conceived, was never > intended to be some kind of "refuge" for novices, but rather a game that > all levels of players, from novice to expert, could enjoy together. Truebridge resembles the game as played here in California during the 40s, 50s, and early 60s. I can assure you that it was "a game that all levels of players, from novice to expert, could enjoy together." Do you think Mathe and Schleifer did not enjoy that game? The emphasis was on card play rather than on the development of esoteric encrypted bidding systems. It is a card game, after all. As to the bidding, players had to use ingenuity instead of "crutches" (as we called the new conventions). Penalty doubles at the one and two level were quite common, lending a spice to the game that is now mostly lost. Adding to the enjoyment was that casual partnerships needed little discussion. I filled in for Morris Portugal's sick partner at the last minute in a 1957 Masters Pairs. He made one comment: "If you open a three-card club suit with a square hand, rebid one notrump" (a Mathe dictum, I believe, also Kantar's). That was it. Of course we won, else no story, and with no further discussion defended in 1958. The largest and most successful unit championship in San Diego was a two-session individual back then. 26 tables, two 13's, with players sitting in the same seat as their regular partner in the other section. People talked about that game for years, but it would not be a possibility today. Instead, unit championships are miserable little single-session stratified pair games. > > That, IMO, is a huge mistake. Low-level players who don't want to be > "coddled" in the low-level games but would prefer to "mix it up" with the > "big boys and girls" in the "real" games must not only be allowed, but > should be enthusiastically encouraged, to do so. Not if they are unethical, show their hands, and generally don't play according to the rules and regulations of the game. If they can do that, I agree. "Readiness" is not related to skill, and I didn't mean to imply that. However, they should not be pushed into tougher games with the bribe of easy masterpoints. Let them compete for masterpoints on an equal basis. > > I think a Truebridge NABC event would be seen as just one more attempt in > the tradition of Yellow Card and Classic events, and would meet the same > fate. Whereas something along the lines of the original Classic concept > would be different enough that it would be worth a try, and might just succeed. > Perhaps you should write a Classic Bridge bidding specification, and summarize it for us. 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 Tue Oct 3 04:35:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e92IYd109311 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 04:34:39 +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 e92IYXt09307 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 04:34:34 +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 ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 11:34:49 -0700 Message-ID: <02d401c02c9f$40a2b0c0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <000e01c02c77$df2ef1e0$7713f7a5@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Alerts Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 11:33:16 -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 From: "Craig Senior" > Eric L wrote: > Low-level players who don't want to be > >"coddled" in the low-level games but would prefer to "mix it up" with the > >"big boys and girls" in the "real" games must not only be allowed, but > >should be enthusiastically encouraged, to do so. > > > > This is something that should be etched into the minds of everyone who wants > to attract new bridge players. They are not 6 year olds. They are capable > adults who have had success in many fields of endeavour. They do not need to > be given pablum and baby talk, and may be insulted by it. They must be > treated with respect, as befits them as people, not with the condescension > with which novices are ofter regarded. And those stalwart few who are > willing to take their lumps and play up (or those who refuse to act > intimidated in the its-the-only-game-in-town stratified) deserve especial > encouragement, for they are the future of the "real" game. Certainly. But let them play according to the Laws and regulations of the game, while competing for masterpoints on the same basis as other players. Don't coddle them with condescending tolerance of their irregularities or with easy masterpoints. 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 3 05:04:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e92J44Q09350 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 05:04:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f16.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e92J3wt09346 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 05:03:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 12:03:50 -0700 Received: from 172.141.124.226 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 02 Oct 2000 19:03:50 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.141.124.226] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Not only humble, but umble. Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 12:03:50 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Oct 2000 19:03:50.0867 (UTC) FILETIME=[8035BA30:01C02CA3] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Wayne Burrows" >To: "Todd Zimnoch" , >Subject: Re: [BLML] Not only humble, but umble. >Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 22:02:00 +1300 > >----- Original Message ----- > > > An agreement that third-in-hand always opens, regardless of the >hand's > > ability to make a bid descriptive of itself, makes all 3rd seat openings > > conventions as the bid does not show high-card strength or length in the > > suit mentioned nor an explicit desire to play there. > >The law does not say "explicit desire" but merely "willingness". IMO this >is quite a different thing. > >I once psyched by overcalling in my void - I was willing to play there in >fact even when my partner raised to the three level I was willing to play >there. This was evidenced by my pass of that bid - didn't have enough to >go >on to game :-) . In fact I would have rather enjoyed writing in -350 in >the >column of -450's having taken the same two tricks offensively as we could >have cashed defensively. Sadly, the greedy opponent doubled and I ran to >my >side seven card suit and improved my score, but not my satisfaction, >to -100. This is a question I'm not prepared to answer adaquately. However,... First, that bid is not part of your system and we're only regulating systems. If the bid's meaning was "I have so and so and would like to play here," I see you changed your mind later in the auction. I would argue that the purpose of your bid was to scare the opponents away from bidding game in a suit contract where their suit happened to be your void. There's a very high probability of that. I'd like a different definition for convention to work from as I don't think tactical willingness to play in a void was considered at the time it was made. I suspect that the second 'or' between willingness and high-card strenght is there as raising your partner's suit is not conventional even when you fail to have high-cards or 3 or more cards. But I think it should be an 'and' when the suit has not yet been shown (not necessarily bid) by the partnership. However, I see the difficulty in a system where pass outs are prohibited, but 1 of a major openings 3rd & 4th seat always get passed by partner. Whether or not it's a psych it shows willingness. :/ > > A psychic bid that has a control on it is messier. Whether or not >it > > shows a desire to play in the suit named, etc., is unknown at the time >the > > bid is made. But I think that's sufficient to call it a convention as >well. > > > >How do you get to this from the definition? Splitting hairs between "could convey" and "(does) convey." It could have a natural* meaning, while at the same time it could not. I see no real difference between 2D showing a strong hand or weak hearts (is a convention) and 2D showing weak hearts or a psych (should also be a convention). -Todd (* I thought that 'non-conventional' would be too confusing and neither are quite the correct word.) _________________________________________________________________________ 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 Oct 3 05:15:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e92JF5409370 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 05:15:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e92JExt09366 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 05:15:00 +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, 2 Oct 2000 12:15:12 -0700 Message-ID: <02e301c02ca4$e52c0560$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20001002172643.007d0940@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Alerts Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 12:11:59 -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 Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > Do they fear being verbally abused ? Possibly, but how could they know this > sometimes happens ? > Do they fear ridicule ? Some have stated it so. > Or perhaps they wouldn't like to see their money be packed every time by > the same people ? This should be taken into account, since evening > tournaments are usually about 3.60 $ -6 $ entry fee (half of which is given > back), while in the Dutch-speaking North they usually are 2.40. Is this > enough difference to explain differing attitudes ? > > My first-choice explanation would be that many would prefer to play first > fiddle in their own village than second in Rome. Ego-boosting and all that. Or maybe they prefer to just play cards rather than participate in a cryptoanalytical exercise, if the use of oddball conventions and systems differs quite a bit at the two levels. In ACBL-land of the 50 years ago, the weaker players generally did not play in the championship events at a tournament, mainly because it was easier to win masterpoints in the side games. That made for some very keen play in the championships, a rarity nowadays. Weaker pairs were welcome if they followed acceptable ethical standards. 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 Tue Oct 3 05:18:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e92JIif09382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 05:18:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.0.213]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e92JIbt09378 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 05:18:38 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 578248FA7; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 15:18:34 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 15:18:26 -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 Here's the writeup I plan on posting the GNYBA's (Greater New York Bridge Association) "Appeals" web page. As always, comments or criticisms are appreciated. 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 asked for a heart stopper and pass denied one 3S P 3N P 3N showed a partial heart stopper, typically Qx or Jxx 4C all pass East's 3NT came only after a long hesitation. There was no disagreement as to the facts. West held S AKQJ H 843 D A65 C 876. NS blocked the heart suit and 4C made an overtrick. Table Result: NS -150 This was the full deal: Board 6 Dlr E EW Vul 10753 A7 KJ973 K3 AKQJ 862 843 T95 A65 2 876 AQJT92 94 KQJ62 QT84 54 Director's ruling: Using Laws 73A2, 73C, 73F1, 16A2, and 12C2, the director determined that 1. West had unauthorized information available. 2. Pass was a logical alternative to 4C. 3. The unauthorized information demonstrably suggested that 4C would be more successful than Pass. 4. Had West passed, the likely result would have been 3NT down 1. Accordingly the director adjusted the contract to 3NT down 1, NS +50 for both sides. EW appealed. The committee deliberations: In committee, EW argued that Pass was not a logical alternative since West knew that his side possessed no heart stopper. EW also explained that they had a long standing partnership and that they had a clear agreement that the Pass over the Double denied a full heart stopper, and so 3N showed only a partial stopper. East explained that he had been considering raising to 4S. Sure enough, 4S would have been a fine contract had East held S Txx rather than S 8xx. Even S Tx might do the trick! The committee asked the director why he had ruled as he had, and in particular why he considered Pass a logical alternative. The director explained that he thought it was a close matter as to whether or not Pass was a LA, and that he expected his decision to be appealed no matter which way he ruled. Accordingly he ruled in favor of the non-offending side, so as to place the burden on the offending side to argue the bridge merits of their case before a committee. The committee considered it a close matter as to whether or not Pass was a logical alternative. The matter of the firmness of EW's agreements was discussed. EW could not prove they had such an agreement, but few pairs could. The committee took into account that their testimony as to their agreement was self-serving, but did not discount it entirely. Each member thought that Pass was not a LA, but each member considered it close. Had any one member thought Pass a LA he likely could have persuaded the other two. The committee decision: The committee decided that Pass was not a logical alternative with the West cards. That being the case there was no reason to disturb the table result. The committee restored the table result, NS +150. Editors comments: I chaired this committee, and I'm not convinced we made the right decision. I subsequently took a poll on the Bridge Laws Mailing List. When presented only with the West hand and the auction with explanations four respondents out of ten considered Pass a logical alternative. The poll, however, presented the EW agreement as to stoppers as a given. What I think the committee might have taken into account is that the EW agreement may not have been as firm as EW thought it was, since East in fact bid 3N without the promised partial stopper. Some Wests would pass 3N hoping for the heart suit to block. They might reason that North would sometimes raise holding a doubleton honor. The committee, which could see that North held H Kx and had not raised, may not have given the possibility of heart blockage sufficient weight. If there's a lesson to be learned it's that we should be liberal when considering logical alternatives. Even better, a committee should consider logical alternatives before they've seen the whole hand. Seeing the entire hand may be relevant to the committee's decision as a whole, but it's not likely relevant when determining only what a player's logical alternatives were. This approach is sometimes used for NABC committees - we should consider introducing it locally. 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 Oct 3 06:08:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e92K88R09413 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 06:08:08 +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-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 e92K82t09409 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 06:08:03 +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 e92K7wT26024 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 16:07:58 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20001002145225.00b6f230@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, 02 Oct 2000 16:09:47 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Alerts In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001002172643.007d0940@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <000e01c02c77$df2ef1e0$7713f7a5@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 11:26 AM 10/2/00, alain wrote: >AG : great idea, but in Belgium it seems not to be working very well (at >least in the French-speaking part of the country) : new players are very >reluctant to intermix with experts in tournaments. > >We had numerous brainstormings about the reasons for this. > >Do they fear being verbally abused ? Possibly, but how could they know this >sometimes happens ? >Do they fear ridicule ? Some have stated it so. >Or perhaps they wouldn't like to see their money be packed every time by >the same people ? This should be taken into account, since evening >tournaments are usually about 3.60 $ -6 $ entry fee (half of which is given >back), while in the Dutch-speaking North they usually are 2.40. Is this >enough difference to explain differing attitudes ? > >My first-choice explanation would be that many would prefer to play first >fiddle in their own village than second in Rome. Ego-boosting and all that. Both locally (Washington DC area) and nationally (ACBL NABCs), we have "intermediate/novice" (I/N) programs that are organized and run by a different group of people from those that organize and run the "big games". Both the organizers themselves and those that evaluate "their" I/N games unfortunately but inevitably judge the "success" of these programs by their size. A "successful" I/N program, one which brings approbation (and additional funding!) to its organizers, is not one which maximizes the number of former I/N players in the big games, but rather one which maximizes the number of players in the I/N games. The result is that the organizers of the I/N program find it to be in their own self-interest to *discourage* "their" players from moving up before the rules require them to do so. Most I/N players eventually come to believe that when they do get to the big game, they will discover that their opponents are rude, obnoxious and litigious, that they will jump down the throat of any hapless novice who hesitates, mis-alerts or gets confused about a bidding sequence, that they will haul them before appeals committees with esoteric and incomprehensible accusations of trivial violations of rules they've never heard of, that they go out of their way to make their bidding as confusing as possible so that less experienced players will have no idea what they're doing, that they, in short, are just waiting "eat them alive"... which is what they try their best to do to each other. This makes sense, given that when they arrived on their first day, everyone naturally assumed that they would want to play in the I/N game, that they would be uncomfortable in the big game, that they will never appreciate the action in the big pool until they've gotten their feet wet in the baby pool. And when the option of trying the open game was never even offered to them. And when, if they ask, just such horrors are cited as the reasons they should prefer the "protection" from them that the I/N program offers. I've talked to novices who were surprised and amazed to discover that most of the players in the big game not only are not what they've been led to expect, but abhor the attitude of those that are. I've talked to novices who refuse to move up because they believe that they will be expected to behave that way themselves, and don't want to! And I've talked to many novices who firmly believed (until I personally explained otherwise) that they *were not allowed* to play in the big game until they "graduated" from the I/N program. Are we really doing those novices a service when we unthinkingly send them to the novice game, even with the best of motives, because we ourselves believe that if they tried the real game they will run away screaming? Should we really be surprised if they get the message that if and when they try the real game, they will run away screaming? 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 Oct 3 06:26:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e92KPjn09436 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 06:25:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e92KPdt09432 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 06:25:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-5.cais.net (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e92KPZH91225 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 16:25:35 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20001002161525.00b6f970@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, 02 Oct 2000 16:27:24 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] ACBL Alerts In-Reply-To: <000d01c02c89$0beb8520$23c3e080@isi.com> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20001002084552.00aba4a0@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 11:54 AM 10/2/00, Richard wrote: > > Try again. 1NT-P-3C. Pair 1, who are playing 16-18 1NT, > > define this as > > "semi-solid six-card suit, game-invitational values". Pair > > 2, who are > > playing 12-14 1NT, define this as "semi-solid six-card suit, > > game-invitational values". Are these pairs playing the same > > thing? > >I believe that the systematic meaning of the 3C call is the same. > >3C shows a single suit hand with 6+ clubs. >The bid invites partner to invite 3N with a suitable hand. > >The set of hands that qualifies for the 3C call might be dramatically >different >if one were playing a 12-14 NT as opposed to a 16-18 NT. I don't think this washes. A call, unless it is a pure "asking bid", is defined not only by how partner responds to it, but by the range of hands which one will hold when one makes it. Having written a system book, I understand that to best teach an unfamiliar treatment, you can't just define it theoretically, but must give plenty of supporting examples of its use. So imagine a player encountering an unalerted method who later gets out his copy of the "baseline system book" and looks up its meaning. He will not find a mixture of examples showing both 3C bids over weak NTs and 3C bids over strong NTs -- those sets of examples would be entirely different -- if he does, he has a "book about bidding", not a "system book". It's true that when Richard calls these two treatments "the same thing", BLML readers, who have a great deal of experience of bridge, bridge terminology and bridge laws, know what he means -- if we are told only what a bid "asks", we can make reasonable inferences about what kinds of hands might be held to make the bid. But we are not the people whom the alert procedure was designed to protect. 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 Oct 3 06:38:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e92KcnD09452 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 06:38:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e92Kcht09448 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 06:38:43 +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 e92KcdT27856 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 16:38:39 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20001002162949.00b6c5a0@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, 02 Oct 2000 16:39:56 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] L24 and ACBLLC Minutes In-Reply-To: <029f01c02c95$d1df5e80$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:25 PM 10/2/00, Marvin wrote: > Of greater importance is the news that all minutes of ACBLLC >meetings, starting with the most recent and working backwards, will >soon be published on the ACBL Web site. Interpretations rising out >of these meetings have not been well-disseminated in the past, even >though they carry the force of law. Now players and Directors will >know of them in a timely manner, not only for compliance but for the >opportunity to comment on them. Now players and Directors who (a) own a computer, (b) subscribe to an Internet provider, and (c) have enough spare time to spend a significant amount of it browsing the ACBL website, will know of them in a timely manner. And to the others, we can only say, "Tough noogies. If you want to know the rules, get a computer, subscribe to an Internet provider, and find yourself some extra spare time." Putting stuff on the net may be convenient for a minority of the membership, but the only official place for the American Contract Bridge League to publish their official policies and regulations is "the official publication of the American Contract Bridge League". That's the Bulletin -- it says so right on the masthead. 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 Oct 3 07:24:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e92LO0909508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 07:24:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e92LNrt09504 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 07:23:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivesfc.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.113.236]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA00194 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 17:23:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001002172034.0134c5a8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 17:20:34 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] L24 and ACBLLC Minutes In-Reply-To: <029f01c02c95$d1df5e80$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:25 AM 10/2/2000 -0700, Marv wrote: >The only other example of ACBL non-compliance with the Laws that >comes to mind is of like unimportance. ACBL TDs permit a defender >to point out to partner that s/he has turned a card in the wrong >direction >during the play. Violation of L73A1 perhaps, an improper >communication with partner? I think so. I suspect you are right, but violations of L73A1 actually enjoy specific legal approval in at least one case. L42B2 says that dummy "may try to prevent any irregularity by declarer." How on earth can this be accomplished without violating L73A1? I think that the ACBL's policy with respect to correcting the direction of misturned cards is of the same cut of cloth, and I can live with it. I really don't know how to read L73A1, in light of L42B2. 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 Oct 3 07:25:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e92LPcb09521 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 07:25:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e92LPVt09517 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 07:25:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e92EYVb03498 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 14:34:31 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Subject: Re: [BLML] Mind your Ps and Qs Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 14:26:28 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200009291901.UAA18739@tempest.npl.co.uk> <004501c02aae$1ab32cc0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <004501c02aae$1ab32cc0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00100214343103.03329@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sat, 30 Sep 2000, Marvin L. French wrote: > 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. It was moot; he had already checked the score at the other table, and thus had decided that we couldn't gain anything from the ruling. In a Swiss, nothing got enetered into the computer until we had the final results of the match in VP's; had it been pairs, the P and Q scores would have bene entered with the 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. > 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. I agree with this, but it's not how many directors rule in practice. The Director would have been willing to give us average-plus because we could have been damaged, but wasn't willing to give us the assumption of misdefense (which seemed to me to be likely). -- 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 Tue Oct 3 07:35:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e92LZ1O09538 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 07:35:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e92LYtt09534 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 07:34:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4er.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.17.219]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA04848 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 17:34:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <010501c02cb8$f6481e60$db11f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: [BLML] L24 and ACBLLC Minutes Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 17:36:37 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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 must remember that many bridge players do not give a fig about the fine points of the law. They should get a precis of any changes that affect them and they should know where they could learn more...but after that some tips from an expert or a Victor Mollo or David Bird piece or even some ads for upcoming tourneys may make a better use of the space for them. After all there are only a few hundred of us on this list out of how many in the world? Could you justify using someone's due money to print our our erudite deliberations for every bridge player in the world? One test of interest may be the sale of law books...how many non-directors have bought a copy? We have trouble getting them to RTFLB! Let's be pleased that the ACBL has taken an excellent step forward by placing this matter on the website, where those of us who care CAN find it. After all if everyone were interested, case books would be giving Tom Clancy a run for his money :-)) Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Date: Monday, October 02, 2000 4:46 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L24 and ACBLLC Minutes >At 01:25 PM 10/2/00, Marvin wrote: > >> Of greater importance is the news that all minutes of ACBLLC >>meetings, starting with the most recent and working backwards, will >>soon be published on the ACBL Web site. Interpretations rising out >>of these meetings have not been well-disseminated in the past, even >>though they carry the force of law. Now players and Directors will >>know of them in a timely manner, not only for compliance but for the >>opportunity to comment on them. > >Now players and Directors who (a) own a computer, (b) subscribe to an >Internet provider, and (c) have enough spare time to spend a significant >amount of it browsing the ACBL website, will know of them in a timely >manner. And to the others, we can only say, "Tough noogies. If you want >to know the rules, get a computer, subscribe to an Internet provider, and >find yourself some extra spare time." > >Putting stuff on the net may be convenient for a minority of the >membership, but the only official place for the American Contract Bridge >League to publish their official policies and regulations is "the official >publication of the American Contract Bridge League". That's the Bulletin >-- it says so right on the masthead. > > >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 Oct 3 07:38:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e92LcFZ09553 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 07:38:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e92Lc9t09549 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 07:38:09 +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 e92Lc4q63966 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 17:38:04 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20001002165027.00b69d40@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, 02 Oct 2000 17:39:53 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Alerts In-Reply-To: <02b501c02c9d$84f7e4e0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000928085115.00a98ae0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20001002074149.00ab3760@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 02:20 PM 10/2/00, Marvin wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > > I can see where novices might like and/or benefit from Truebridge as >a > > learning experience, but it would be, IMO, too radically different >from > > what they will (we hope) eventually encounter in the "real" game to >be all > > that useful -- not so much because of the particular methods Marv >chose, > > but because of the "unreality" of encountering exactly the same >opposing > > system at every table. Classic, as originally conceived, was never > > intended to be some kind of "refuge" for novices, but rather a game >that > > all levels of players, from novice to expert, could enjoy together. > >Truebridge resembles the game as played here in California during the >40s, 50s, and early 60s. I can assure you that it was "a game that all >levels of players, from novice to expert, could enjoy together." Do >you think Mathe and Schleifer did not enjoy that game? Of course they did. So did I. But times change, the art advances, and our ways of yesteryear are preserved only for history and revived only for their nostalgia value. Once upon a time bridge was as Marv describes it, but it no longer is, and to pretend otherwise, even just to novices, would be what I meant by "unreality". Way back then I dearly loved my 11-inch B&W TV too, but I wouldn't buy one today. If today's "all levels of players" preferred their bridge that way it would still be played that way. >The emphasis >was on card play rather than on the development of esoteric encrypted >bidding systems. It is a card game, after all. As to the bidding, >players had to use ingenuity instead of "crutches" (as we called the >new conventions). Penalty doubles at the one and two level were quite >common, lending a spice to the game that is now mostly lost. And if there are still folks out there who believe that they're better off playing that way, they are free to do so. Indeed, my personal preference is for EHAA, an un-esoteric, un-encrypted, extremely natural and extremely old-fashioned bidding method, with minimal "crutches" and lots of scope for judgment and ingenuity. I do find it rather spicy, which is to my liking. But I'm in a minority, and wouldn't dream of wanting to impose my methods on the rest of the world (or even just the rest of the world's novices). (I'm also one of those who strongly supported Classic Bridge events, as they were originally conceived, before they turned into someone's-favorite-system events.) > > That, IMO, is a huge mistake. Low-level players who don't want to >be > > "coddled" in the low-level games but would prefer to "mix it up" >with the > > "big boys and girls" in the "real" games must not only be allowed, >but > > should be enthusiastically encouraged, to do so. > >Not if they are unethical, show their hands, and generally don't play >according to the rules and regulations of the game. If they can do >that, I agree. "Readiness" is not related to skill, and I didn't mean >to imply that. However, they should not be pushed into tougher games >with the bribe of easy masterpoints. Let them compete for masterpoints >on an equal basis. I've never played in a novice game, so I guess I never realized that they permitted unethical play, showing hands, or generally ignoring the rules. I had always thought they were about limiting novices' exposure to unfamiliar and hard-to-understand methods, not to the accepted ethical strictures and rules of the game. No wonder they have such a hard time moving up! I understood intellectually that novice games have changed a great deal, as they have gone from a way to help social players make the transition to duplicate to a way to provide non-players with their initial introduction to bridge, but I guess I never thought the implications through. But if this is what we teach or encourage them to do, how are we doing them, or ourselves, a service? Or is it just about finding another way to separate them from their entry fees? > > I think a Truebridge NABC event would be seen as just one more >attempt in > > the tradition of Yellow Card and Classic events, and would meet the >same > > fate. Whereas something along the lines of the original Classic >concept > > would be different enough that it would be worth a try, and might >just succeed. > > >Perhaps you should write a Classic Bridge bidding specification, and >summarize it for us. Let's start with a template. Then, if folks are really interested in my ideas for a specification, I'd be happy to develop one as time permits. "The Rules of Classic Bridge "For the purpose of these rules, an 'artificial' method is defined as [insert definition here]. A 'natural' method is defined as any method which is not artificial. "Any natural method may be used. "The only artifical methods which may be used are [insert (short) list here]. "There are no alerts." Now give that template to a blue-ribbon committee, and ask them to come up with a definition of "artificial" and a list of allowed artificial methods. If they instead come back with "the official Classic Bridge system", fire them and get another committee. 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 Oct 3 07:59:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e92LxTa09591 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 07:59:29 +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-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 e92LxMt09587 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 07:59:23 +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 13gDc8-00098j-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 22:59:19 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 12:38:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht References: <01c02bf2$77f07060$0100007f@localhost> In-Reply-To: <01c02bf2$77f07060$0100007f@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Patrick Shields wrote: >B) I have seen questions answered by both opponents indicate a complete >misunderstanding, and the server at the table then skipping the board, since >(with the many casual partnerships which appear on OKBridge) any pleasure >from the result of the hand has just disappeared. This is an approach I'd >like to support. Why? so that you do not play bridge? If I was one of the players concerned and the server skipped the board unilaterally I would leave the table and report him to the authorities. Yes, I agree, there is a group of players who like nursemaids on online bridge, but I see no reason to encourage them. The problems of overcoming adversity is part of bridge [as all other sports and mindsports] and giving up has never seemed to me to be much of a solution. -- 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 Oct 3 10:59:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e930x1r09806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 10:59:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e930wst09802 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 10:58:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.103.151] (helo=D457300) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13gGPw-0002FA-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 03 Oct 2000 01:58:49 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01c02cd4$f45872a0$9767073e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: <01c02bf2$77f07060$0100007f@localhost> Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 01:57:48 +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: > Patrick Shields wrote: > > >B) I have seen questions answered by both opponents indicate a complete > >misunderstanding, and the server at the table then skipping the board, since > >(with the many casual partnerships which appear on OKBridge) any pleasure > >from the result of the hand has just disappeared. This is an approach I'd > >like to support. > > Why? so that you do not play bridge? If I was one of the players > concerned and the server skipped the board unilaterally I would leave > the table and report him to the authorities. Good grief. It seems to me that if all four players at a table agree that a board should be skipped and the next board wheeled into place, that is their business and no one else's. Online bridge at the moment seems to me far more akin to bridge played around the kitchen table than to bridge played at the local club, let alone to bridge played at a serious tournament. If people are going to start reporting to "the authorities" (what authorities, incidentally?) cases of boards being skipped because they have just become unplayable, then online bridge is not going to survive. Looking at rec.games.bridge.okbridge, it seems to me that the lunatics are three-quarters of the way to taking over the asylum already, which is a pity. > Yes, I agree, there is a group of players who like nursemaids on > online bridge, but I see no reason to encourage them. The problems of > overcoming adversity is part of bridge [as all other sports and > mindsports] and giving up has never seemed to me to be much of a > solution. David, it is possible (indeed, it is certain) that 99% of people who play bridge do not think that it ought to be played in the way in which you and I think it ought to be played. We have a rarefied view of what the laws and the ethics of the game ought to be - perhaps we are right about this in the abstract, but it is important to realise that we are in a vanishingly tiny minority. If you try to turn online bridge into a well-run tournament, if you think that you can somehow educate everyone on OKB into playing the game the way it is played in the Olympiad, then you are in serious danger of killing the entire phenomenon. As the current chairman of the L&E points out from time to time, no one actually cares what the laws are. All they care about is that people who know the laws should not impinge on their enjoyment of the game. He is absolutely right. 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 Oct 3 11:08:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9318Ru09830 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 11:08:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9318Nt09826 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 11:08:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA29339 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 11:03:34 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 03 Oct 2000 12:04:16 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] System crash To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 12:05:20 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 03/10/2000 12:01:12 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In the thread Laws Articles from Maastricht, Herman De Wael wrote: "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." While it is true that you have no right to be informed about an opponent's misbid, you do have a right to be correctly informed about the opponents' systemic agreements. Therefore, you are entitled to the knowledge that the opponents are having a bidding mistake if one of them makes a *non-systemic* call. Just such a case occurred last night. Pard opened 1NT (11-14), RHO overcalled 2C (alerted and explained as any one-suited hand), I bid 2H (natural signoff), LHO passed, and pard bid 2S! Questions 1: Since 2S was non-systemic, should it be alerted so that the opponents are aware that a wheel has fallen off? Or is this improperly waking up pard, since only unusual partnership *agreements* need be alerted? Or is the fact that 2S is non-systemic an *agreement*? Question 2: Given that in our system a 1NT opening denies a 5-card major, there are various possibilities as to why pard has called 2S, for example: a) Pard did not intentionally psyche, but missorted his hand (putting spades in the club suit), and has now discovered a 7-3-3-0 shape. b) Pard has a maximum with 4-card heart support, and has invented a long suit trial bid (which we play in other sequences). c) Pard has not noticed RHO's overcall, and is completing a transfer. d) Pard has psyched with a weak hand and a long spade suit. Given that there are at least four different options as to why pard has made his *non-systemic* call, is it Lawful for me to act according to possibility d)? Question 3: At the table pard alerted 2H, giving me UI that possibility c) was correct. What LAs remain to me now? 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 Oct 3 13:30:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e933TxR09942 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:29:59 +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.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 e933Tqt09938 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:29:53 +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 <20001003032947.DKPV24299.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 20:29:47 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 20:26:50 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <002001c02bf0$85cca2a0$5f3a073e@D457300> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Guaranteed not lower, because both Herman and I did... Linda > DWS wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > >+=+ The desired practice has not been adopted by players. > > > > Has it not? Do you mean that not only was I the only player in > > Maastricht with a 100% record [played two matches, won two matches] > but > > also I was the only one introducing random hesitations? I assumed > > everyone was. > > There were, by my calculations, about 1,000 players involved in the > Olympiad and the Transnational Mixed Teams. Of these, I would say that > perhaps 998 were not using random hesitations, though the figure may be > slightly lower. > > 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 Oct 3 16:52:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e936pJU10067 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 16:51:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e936p3t10063 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 16:51:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.88] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13gLuj-000DT7-00; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 07:50:57 +0100 Message-ID: <000601c02d06$76967740$585408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Brian Meadows" , References: <01c02bf2$77f07060$0100007f@localhost> <008801c02c34$4f2dd860$345908c3@dodona> <1kjgtson23qg4ppeq9qv826o0158pehc8g@4ax.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 23:21:00 +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 "I shall light a candle of understanding in thine heart, which shall not be put out." [Esdras] ----- Original Message ----- From: Brian Meadows To: Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 10:02 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht > On Mon, 2 Oct 2000 06:39:55 +0100, Grattan wrote: > > > > > Please feel free to comment; we are at the stage > >where the first draft is under review, following WBFLC > >discussions in Maastricht, and the next further step will > >then be consultation with OGPs*, so now is a good time > >to know players' thoughts. > > If you want to know online players' thoughts, might I ask where this > first draft can be found? If a URL has been posted on BLML, then I for > one have missed it. > +=+ I have not explained myself well. I was saying comment if you wish on what I said in the email. The draft is not yet published and is not open to general comment at this stage. The intention is to consult with Online Game Providers only as the next step (when we have sorted out the questions put to us by the WBFLC in M'cht). This will lead to a final draft. There has been no decision yet as to what will then occur, but I imagine it will be a report to the WBF Executive inviting promulgation 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 Tue Oct 3 17:29:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e937TUf10102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 17:29:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e937TOt10098 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 17:29:25 +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 ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 00:29:40 -0700 Message-ID: <037001c02d0b$7b177940$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.1.32.20001002172034.0134c5a8@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] L24 and ACBLLC Minutes Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 00:23:39 -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 Mike Dennis wrote: > Marv wrote: > >The only other example of ACBL non-compliance with the Laws that > >comes to mind is of like unimportance. ACBL TDs permit a defender > >to point out to partner that s/he has turned a card in the wrong > >direction > >during the play. Violation of L73A1 perhaps, an improper > >communication with partner? I think so. > > I suspect you are right, but violations of L73A1 actually enjoy specific > legal approval in at least one case. L42B2 says that dummy "may try to > prevent any irregularity by declarer." How on earth can this be > accomplished without violating L73A1? Also the right of defenders (in ACBL-land) to ask partner about a possible revoke seems to violate L73A1. Note, however, that even if some violations of a Law "enjoy specific legal approval," that does not mean all violations are okay. They must be specifically approved. > > I think that the ACBL's policy with respect to correcting the direction of > misturned cards is of the same cut of cloth, and I can live with it. I > really don't know how to read L73A1, in light of L42B2. > Just assume that L73A1 fails to reference some permitted exceptions to what it says, as it should. Laws should not have mutual conflicts. 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 Tue Oct 3 17:50:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e937obx10130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 17:50:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e937oVt10126 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 17:50:32 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id IAA18810 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 08:50:22 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 08:50 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] How to treat third hand opening agreements. 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: Either I was rendered speechless or my EMail was playing up. Grattan wrote: > +=+ Be careful with '7' - that is a King below average.+=+ I assume that an "average" hand is an "average" 10-count. Assuming we classify seven counts into "worse than average 7 counts", "average 7 counts" and "better than average 7 counts" the last of these groups must be "within a King of average strength". So a system which allows openers on e.g. AJT9x,x,QT8x,T9x but not Q32,QJ,432,Q5432 would, one assumes, be outside the regulatory remit. Indeed if your system permits the latter I would regard the explanation "could be weak" as inadequate. 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 Oct 3 20:16:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e93AFRM10218 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 20:15:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e93AFNt10214 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 20:15:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.104.21]) by mta6-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20001003101835.TQVF1192841.mta6-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 23:18:35 +1300 Message-ID: <010f01c02d22$bce47280$c62e37d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] How to treat third hand opening agreements. Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 23:14:34 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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: "Tim West-meads" To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 8:50 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] How to treat third hand opening agreements. > In-Reply-To: > Either I was rendered speechless or my EMail was playing up. > > Grattan wrote: > > > +=+ Be careful with '7' - that is a King below average.+=+ > > I assume that an "average" hand is an "average" 10-count. Assuming we > classify seven counts into "worse than average 7 counts", "average 7 > counts" and "better than average 7 counts" the last of these groups > must be "within a King of average strength". So a system which allows > openers on e.g. AJT9x,x,QT8x,T9x but not Q32,QJ,432,Q5432 would, one > assumes, be outside the regulatory remit. Indeed if your system > permits the latter I would regard the explanation "could be weak" as > inadequate. > This has been discussed before and the problem as I see it is that there is no appropriate definition of average hand. All attempts at defining an average hand based on schmoints or similar seem to lead to anomolies of judgement. Not that I am in favour at all of some arbitrary ruling that some hand based on some particular evaluation is an average hand. 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 Oct 3 20:25:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e93AOwA10236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 20:24:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e93AOgt10228 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 20:24:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13gPFV-000Kcb-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 10:24:38 +0000 Message-ID: <6PbADAAIQU25Ewr4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 03:27:20 +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> <4.3.2.7.1.20000929080523.00ab7730@127.0.0.1> <39D4AC63.FDC7F67D@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20001002090721.00a9ac40@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20001002090721.00a9ac40@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 10:51 AM 9/29/00, Herman wrote: > >>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. > >Correct; one does not have the right to the knowledge that opponents are >having a misunderstanding. But one does, now (by L73D1, except where it >has been abridged under L80E, my original point being that this is not >ideal, but rather a practical compromise with reality), and should (if >possible in practice), have the right to observe one's opponents and, if >one judges that they are likely to be having a misunderstanding, to choose >one's actions accordingly, at one's own risk, with, of course, no redress >if one has made a false assumption. These are not at all the same >thing. One can make the case that if we take away the latter, bridge would >be a better game (although I would disagree), but cannot reasonably argue >that it would not be a very different one. There's nothing in my Law book in L73D1 that says you have a right to observe the opponents. -- 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 Oct 3 20:25:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e93AOxZ10237 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 20:24:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e93AOgt10229 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 20:24:43 +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 13gPFV-000CVw-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 10:24:38 +0000 Message-ID: <$vNBrFASUU25Ewpk@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 03:31:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht References: <01c02bf2$77f07060$0100007f@localhost> <000b01c02cd4$f45872a0$9767073e@D457300> In-Reply-To: <000b01c02cd4$f45872a0$9767073e@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: > >> Patrick Shields wrote: >> >> >B) I have seen questions answered by both opponents indicate a >complete >> >misunderstanding, and the server at the table then skipping the >board, since >> >(with the many casual partnerships which appear on OKBridge) any >pleasure >> >from the result of the hand has just disappeared. This is an approach >I'd >> >like to support. >> >> Why? so that you do not play bridge? If I was one of the players >> concerned and the server skipped the board unilaterally I would leave >> the table and report him to the authorities. > >Good grief. It seems to me that if all four players at a table agree >that a board should be skipped and the next board wheeled into place, >that is their business and no one else's. Online bridge at the moment >seems to me far more akin to bridge played around the kitchen table than >to bridge played at the local club, let alone to bridge played at a >serious tournament. If people are going to start reporting to "the >authorities" (what authorities, incidentally?) cases of boards being >skipped because they have just become unplayable, then online bridge is >not going to survive. Looking at rec.games.bridge.okbridge, it seems to >me that the lunatics are three-quarters of the way to taking over the >asylum already, which is a pity. > >> Yes, I agree, there is a group of players who like nursemaids on >> online bridge, but I see no reason to encourage them. The problems of >> overcoming adversity is part of bridge [as all other sports and >> mindsports] and giving up has never seemed to me to be much of a >> solution. > >David, it is possible (indeed, it is certain) that 99% of people who >play bridge do not think that it ought to be played in the way in which >you and I think it ought to be played. We have a rarefied view of what >the laws and the ethics of the game ought to be - perhaps we are right >about this in the abstract, but it is important to realise that we are >in a vanishingly tiny minority. If you try to turn online bridge into a >well-run tournament, if you think that you can somehow educate everyone >on OKB into playing the game the way it is played in the Olympiad, then >you are in serious danger of killing the entire phenomenon. As the >current chairman of the L&E points out from time to time, no one >actually cares what the laws are. All they care about is that people who >know the laws should not impinge on their enjoyment of the game. He is >absolutely right. Do you honestly think it adds enjoyment to the game that some people run around beating their breasts and saying that playing in a 4-2 fit is not bridge, and we should protect them from that horror? I think the cry-baby approach is because people are being told so by other people who want no chance of any fun creeping in to the game. I agree with you that the Laws may not be that important to the majority of players but am unconvinced that the nursemaid approach actually makes the game more popular. It certainly does not seem a necessary approach in golf, for example. -- 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 Oct 3 20:40:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e93Adwj10257 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 20:39:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.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 e93Adqt10253 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 20:39:53 +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 <20001003103947.EIKQ10395.mail.rdc1.md.home.com@cc283631-a.twsn1.md.home.com> for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 03:39:47 -0700 From: Brian Meadows To: Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 06:39:55 -0400 Message-ID: References: <01c02bf2$77f07060$0100007f@localhost> <008801c02c34$4f2dd860$345908c3@dodona> <1kjgtson23qg4ppeq9qv826o0158pehc8g@4ax.com> <000601c02d06$76967740$585408c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <000601c02d06$76967740$585408c3@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, 2 Oct 2000 23:21:00 +0100, Grattan wrote: >> >+=+ I have not explained myself well. I was saying comment >if you wish on what I said in the email. The draft is not yet >published and is not open to general comment at this stage. >The intention is to consult with Online Game Providers only >as the next step (when we have sorted out the questions >put to us by the WBFLC in M'cht). This will lead to a final >draft. There has been no decision yet as to what will then >occur, but I imagine it will be a report to the WBF Executive >inviting promulgation of the laws. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Well, thank you for the clarification, I guess. Whatever you folks come up with, I hope you have more sense than to give the ACBL any control whatsoever over OKBridge (or, if the ACBL is involved, that Matt Clegg has the good business sense to tell the ACBL, and the WBF if need be, where to get off). I note from your earlier message that the people involved in this committee are Messrs Kooijman, Wignall, Segraves and yourself. Bill Segraves I know from OKBridge, but purely as a matter of curiosity, might I ask which online bridge service(s), if any, the other three of you use? Brian. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 3 21:00:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e93B0mt10284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 21:00:48 +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 e93B0gt10280 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 21:00:42 +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 MAA10724; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 12:58:58 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id NAA16722; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:00:34 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001003131041.0089ddf0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 13:10:41 +0200 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] How to treat third hand opening agreements. 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 08:50 3/10/00 +0100, Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: >Either I was rendered speechless or my EMail was playing up. > >Grattan wrote: > >> +=+ Be careful with '7' - that is a King below average.+=+ > >I assume that an "average" hand is an "average" 10-count. Assuming we >classify seven counts into "worse than average 7 counts", "average 7 >counts" and "better than average 7 counts" the last of these groups >must be "within a King of average strength". So a system which allows >openers on e.g. AJT9x,x,QT8x,T9x but not Q32,QJ,432,Q5432 would, one >assumes, be outside the regulatory remit. Indeed if your system >permits the latter I would regard the explanation "could be weak" as >inadequate. AG : please note that 'rule of 18' does regulate hands that aren't 'a king below average', for example, nice 4432 9-counts. What are the grounds for that ? Not law 40, obviously (which, by the way, permits legislation about overcalls, which hasn't been done often). 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 Oct 3 21:05:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e93B5kV10296 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 21:05:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e93B5dt10292 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 21:05:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-23.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.23]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA10768 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:05:34 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39D8A3CF.98BD6A34@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 17:03:43 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht References: <003f01c027e9$bec022e0$c4dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000929080523.00ab7730@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20001002090721.00a9ac40@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: > > At 10:51 AM 9/29/00, Herman wrote: > > >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. > > Correct; one does not have the right to the knowledge that opponents are > having a misunderstanding. But one does, now (by L73D1, except where it > has been abridged under L80E, my original point being that this is not > ideal, but rather a practical compromise with reality), and should (if > possible in practice), have the right to observe one's opponents and, if > one judges that they are likely to be having a misunderstanding, to choose > one's actions accordingly, at one's own risk, with, of course, no redress > if one has made a false assumption. Exactly. If one has the information, then it is authorized. But one does not have the right to this. It is not what I call "entitled" information. Now what was your point ? > These are not at all the same > thing. One can make the case that if we take away the latter, bridge would > be a better game (although I would disagree), but cannot reasonably argue > that it would not be a very different one. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 3 21:15:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e93BEqS10315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 21:14:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout1-100bt.midsouth.rr.com (mailout1-100bt.midsouth.rr.com [24.92.68.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e93BEit10311 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 21:14:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from compaq (m4hMs2n135.midsouth.rr.com [24.92.76.135]) by mailout1-100bt.midsouth.rr.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with SMTP id GAA23060 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 06:13:58 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <002a01c02d2a$d5b59f20$874c5c18@midsouth.rr.com> Reply-To: "Chyah Burghard" From: "Chyah Burghard" To: "Bridge-Laws" Subject: [BLML] Laws Commission Notes on ACBL website Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 06:12:29 -0500 Organization: ACBL MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.3018.1300 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The minutes of the Laws Commission is already available at the following address: http://www.acbl.org/tournaments/LawsCommission.htm The long way in is ACBL home page, click on Tournaments on the blue banner at the top, then click on Laws Commission. Chyah Burghard, ACBL Web Administrator =============================================== At 01:25 PM 10/2/00, Marvin wrote: Of greater importance is the news that all minutes of ACBLLC meetings, starting with the most recent and working backwards, will soon be published on the ACBL Web site. Interpretations rising out of these meetings have not been well-disseminated in the past, even though they carry the force of law. Now players and Directors will know of them in a timely manner, not only for compliance but for the opportunity to comment on 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 Tue Oct 3 22:43:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e93CgVG10465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 22:42:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-3.cais.net (stmpy-3.cais.net [205.252.14.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e93CgOt10460 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 22:42:25 +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 e93DAfL33112 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 09:10:41 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20001003083119.00b7e7d0@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, 03 Oct 2000 08:44:11 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] L24 and ACBLLC Minutes In-Reply-To: <010501c02cb8$f6481e60$db11f7a5@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 05:36 PM 10/2/00, Craig wrote: >We must remember that many bridge players do not give a fig about the fine >points of the law. They should get a precis of any changes that affect them >and they should know where they could learn more...but after that some tips >from an expert or a Victor Mollo or David Bird piece or even some ads for >upcoming tourneys may make a better use of the space for them. After all >there are only a few hundred of us on this list out of how many in the >world? Could you justify using someone's due money to print our our erudite >deliberations for every bridge player in the world? One test of interest may >be the sale of law books...how many non-directors have bought a copy? We >have trouble getting them to RTFLB! Let's be pleased that the ACBL has taken >an excellent step forward by placing this matter on the website, where those >of us who care CAN find it. After all if everyone were interested, case >books would be giving Tom Clancy a run for his money :-)) I'm sure more people would read the LC notices, which effect them every time they play in competition, than read all of the BoD minutes, or the annual financial statements, or the statements of circulation. But that's beside the point. An official publication is first and foremost just that, an official publication -- a medium for communicating official matters from the policy-makers to the membership -- and only secondarily an entertainment medium. There is a principle here that's too important to ignore: No official policy should ever go into effect until the membership has been informed of it. Whether all or most or some or very few members actually read it, they must be given the opportunity to do so or else the policy-makers have been derelict in fulfilling their most basic responsibility. Secret rules have no place in our game, nor do rules revealed only to the computer-owning elite. And if they need Bulletin space, they could always leave out a few "I just went to such-and-such tournament and the organizers were just wonderful" letters to the editor. 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 Oct 3 22:48:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e93Cmbq10484 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 22:48:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e93CmRt10476 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 22:48:28 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id NAA26595 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:48:20 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:48 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] How to treat third hand opening agreements. 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: <010f01c02d22$bce47280$c62e37d2@laptop> Wayne wrote: > This has been discussed before and the problem as I see it is that > there is no appropriate definition of average hand. In which case one certainly can't give a ruling that a particular hand is "a king or worse than average". It is necessary for the ruler to picture "average" first. > All attempts at defining an average hand based on schmoints or > similar seem to lead to anomolies of judgement. > > Not that I am in favour at all of some arbitrary ruling that some > hand based on some particular evaluation is an average hand. How about an average hand is: 10hcp 4432 distribution and No particular concentrations of honour strength/intermediates. No doubleton Qx/Jx. At least two A/Ks. The first two criteria are certainly not arbitrary, the last three allow a degree of judgement but within fairly clear tolerances. Would anyone have a problem defending the above in court (not whether a specific hand meets these criteria, just the criteria themselves)? 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 Oct 3 22:48:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e93CmbV10483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 22:48:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e93CmRt10475 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 22:48:28 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id NAA26587 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:48:19 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:48 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] How to treat third hand opening agreements. 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: <3.0.6.32.20001003131041.0089ddf0@pop.ulb.ac.be> alain gottcheiner wrote: > AG : please note that 'rule of 18' does regulate hands that aren't > 'a king below average', for example, nice 4432 9-counts. What are > the grounds for that ? Not law 40, obviously (which, by the way, > permits legislation about overcalls, which hasn't been done often). Isn't "rule of 19/18/17" a guide to hand evaluation/explanation rather than a piece of legislation? 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 Oct 3 23:24:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e93DOCN10525 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 23:24:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e93DO5t10521 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 23:24:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-161.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.161]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA29546 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 15:24:01 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39D9C848.FBF1A856@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 13:51:36 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] System crash References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At the risk of getting flames from ... -well, all of you-, I shall answer this in name of the DeWael school. richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > [snip] > > Just such a case occurred last night. Pard opened 1NT (11-14), RHO > overcalled 2C (alerted and explained as any one-suited hand), I bid 2H > (natural signoff), LHO passed, and pard bid 2S! > First question : (natural signoff) are you sure ? And if you are, is it now, or also at the time ? And if you were, were you 100% sure ? And if you were, would you also like to know what you should do if you were : - only 99% sure ? - only 75% sure ? - totally unaware ? - 75% certain that partner was correct after all ? - 99% certain ? - 100% certain ? one of my main points is that I believe your actions should be the same no matter which of these cases you are in. Now let's see what you should do if you are 100% certain that you have now made a misbid. I believe you should do exactly the same if you are 100% certain that partner has given a wrong explanation. That is : - bid according to what you believe the system is (and try and work out what 2Sp could possible mean ?) - explain 2Sp as completing a transfer. That second point insures that : - partner does not receive UI. - opponents possibly receive MI, but exactly the same as they already have, no worse. - opponents do not know you are having a misunderstanding, something which they are not entitled to after all. Let's go back to your question : > Questions 1: Since 2S was non-systemic, should it be alerted so that the > opponents are aware that a wheel has fallen off? Or is this improperly > waking up pard, since only unusual partnership *agreements* need be > alerted? Or is the fact that 2S is non-systemic an *agreement*? > I a call is non-systemic, it cannot be explained. In the majority interpretation, there is a problem. In the De Wael school, there is no problem. You explain it as completing the transfer (if that is what you are led to believe from partner's actions - such as his explanation - see below) > Question 2: Given that in our system a 1NT opening denies a 5-card major, > there are various possibilities as to why pard has called 2S, for example: > > a) Pard did not intentionally psyche, but missorted his hand (putting > spades in the club suit), and has now discovered a 7-3-3-0 shape. > > b) Pard has a maximum with 4-card heart support, and has invented a long > suit trial bid (which we play in other sequences). > > c) Pard has not noticed RHO's overcall, and is completing a transfer. > > d) Pard has psyched with a weak hand and a long spade suit. > > Given that there are at least four different options as to why pard has > made his *non-systemic* call, is it Lawful for me to act according to > possibility d)? > That question is the same in both schools. I believe it is AI to you that you have no firm agreements on 2He after such an overcall. Given that a-b and d are less likely than c-, I believe you could be entitled to have the AI that partner was completing the transfer. But that is up to the TD to decide. > Question 3: At the table pard alerted 2H, giving me UI that possibility c) > was correct. What LAs remain to me now? > Same as above. I believe you have AI that parter was completing the transfer. -- 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 Oct 3 23:41:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e93DfAL10575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 23:41:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e93Df4t10571 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 23:41:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208.167.55.09.stnd.fuwa.net (default.9oakhill.com) [208.167.55.9] by osiris.watchic.net with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #1 (Debian)) id 13gSSs-0002ix-00; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 09:50:38 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001003093530.00aea100@watchic.net> X-Sender: timg@watchic.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 09:40:31 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: [BLML] How to treat third hand opening agreements. 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 >Grattan wrote: > > > +=+ Be careful with '7' - that is a King below average.+=+ You omitted "strength" from the end of that statement. And, HCP are certainly not the only measure of the strength of a hand. How a King converts to distributional strength, the strength of honors in combination, or the strength of intermediate cards is hard to quantify, of course. 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 Oct 3 23:58:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e93DubE10592 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 23:56:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e93DuUt10588 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 23:56:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208.167.55.09.stnd.fuwa.net (default.9oakhill.com) [208.167.55.9] by osiris.watchic.net with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #1 (Debian)) id 13gShu-0002ze-00; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 10:06:11 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001003094215.00b08100@watchic.net> X-Sender: timg@watchic.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 09:52:16 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht In-Reply-To: <$vNBrFASUU25Ewpk@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <000b01c02cd4$f45872a0$9767073e@D457300> <01c02bf2$77f07060$0100007f@localhost> <000b01c02cd4$f45872a0$9767073e@D457300> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:31 AM 10/3/00 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > Do you honestly think it adds enjoyment to the game that some people >run around beating their breasts and saying that playing in a 4-2 fit is >not bridge, and we should protect them from that horror? It might not add to your enjoyment. It might add to someone else's enjoyment. Of course, it is easy to argue that what those other people are playing is not bridge. But, so what? > I think the cry-baby approach is because people are being told so by >other people who want no chance of any fun creeping in to the game. "Fun" by your tastes. Are you really suggesting that everyone should think the same things are fun? >I >agree with you that the Laws may not be that important to the majority >of players but am unconvinced that the nursemaid approach actually makes >the game more popular. It certainly does not seem a necessary approach >in golf, for example. The average golfer takes an occasional mulligan, adjusts his lie in the fairway, grounds his club when out of bounds and doesn't add a stroke to his score for any of this. Of course, these average players aren't really playing golf, they're playing some closely related game. But, who cares? 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 Oct 4 02:15:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e93GEdi10711 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 02:14:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e93GEXt10707 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 02:14:33 +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; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 09:14:49 -0700 Message-ID: <039201c02d54$d2e994c0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Cc: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20001003083119.00b7e7d0@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] L24 and ACBLLC Minutes Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 09:13:04 -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: > No official policy should ever go into effect until the membership > has been informed of it. > Whether all or most or some or very few members > actually read it, they must be given the opportunity to do so or else the > policy-makers have been derelict in fulfilling their most basic > responsibility. Secret rules have no place in our game, nor do rules > revealed only to the computer-owning elite. > > And if they need Bulletin space, they could always leave out a few "I just > went to such-and-such tournament and the organizers were just wonderful" > letters to the editor. Right on, Eric. > Sometimes new policy has to go into effect on the spot. Say Rich Colker needs an LC intepretation regarding an appeal at an NABC. He gets it from one or more LC members present, and it is implemented. At that time (Daily Bulletin) locally, and soon afterward ACBL-wide (*The Bridge Bulletin* of the ACBL), it should be published to the membership, giving everyone the information for two purposes: implementation elsewhere, and solicitation of comments before it is blessed by the full LC. Call them "Interim Interpretations." As of now I don't think these on-the-spot interpretations get published at all, other than in the NABC casebooks when revealed by some comment of Rich's, and occasionally in the NABC's Daily Bulletin. The full ACBLLC should then take up the matter at its next meeting, accepting, rejecting, or modifying the interpretation. Interpretations originated at this level should indeed be published widely before final adoption at a subsequent meeting, although in some cases interim implementation might be in order until that time. All such ACBLLC interpretations, when finalized, should be forwarded to the WBFLC for approval. Heh! Every step of the way should be publicized in *The Bridge Bulletin*, as Eric suggests, as well as on the ACBL Web site.. At one time the entire minutes of the ACBL Board of Directors were published in the BB, whereas LC actions would take up very little space. Another place to gather and publish all LC interpretations is in the ACBLScore Technical Notes. Some are in there now, but just a minority, and hard to find. The TNs are available to nearly all TDs, since that software is in near-universal use in ACBL-land. One problem with this method of dissemination is that TNs cannot be kept up to date other than when a new version of ACBLScore comes out (and most TDs don't maintain up-to-date versions in their computers). 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 Oct 4 02:44:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e93GiKY10737 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 02:44:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-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 e93GiEt10733 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 02:44:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13gVAb-000E82-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 16:44:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 12:02:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Alerts References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000929085021.00a9a200@127.0.0.1> <000e01c02a16$e6fc10a0$23c3e080@isi.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20001002084552.00aba4a0@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20001002084552.00aba4a0@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: >Consider 1NT-P-3C. Pair 1 defines this as "semi-solid six-card suit, no >outside strength". Pair 2 defines this as "semi-solid six-card suit, about >an ace or equivalent on the side". Are these pairs playing the same >thing? Would at least one of these treatments require an alert? > >Try again. 1NT-P-3C. Pair 1, who are playing 16-18 1NT, define this as >"semi-solid six-card suit, game-invitational values". Pair 2, who are >playing 12-14 1NT, define this as "semi-solid six-card suit, >game-invitational values". Are these pairs playing the same thing? Would >at least one of these treatments require an alert? There is no particular reason to alert in either case. An alert or failure does not paint a full and detailed description of the agreement. Q&A or the CC is needed for detail. -- 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 Oct 4 04:43:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e93Igv310863 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 04:42:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e93Igpt10859 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 04:42:51 +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 OAA00879 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 14:39:25 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <039201c02d54$d2e994c0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20001003083119.00b7e7d0@127.0.0.1> <039201c02d54$d2e994c0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 14:41:14 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] L24 and ACBLLC Minutes Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >Another place to gather and publish all LC interpretations is in the >ACBLScore Technical Notes. Some are in there now, but just a minority, >and hard to find. The TNs are available to nearly all TDs, since that >software is in near-universal use in ACBL-land. One problem with this >method of dissemination is that TNs cannot be kept up to date other >than when a new version of ACBLScore comes out (and most TDs don't >maintain up-to-date versions in their computers). Last time I checked, ACBLScore costs $50 to clubs, and $150 to others. That doesn't say anything about "TD or not TD", it's about clubs. I suppose if I qualify as a TD, and some club here decides to use me as such, they'll give me access to their copy of the program (and a DOS or Windoze box to run it on) but I'm not paying 150 bucks for a program I would use rarely - and I don't think the average ACBL member ought to have to go to such lengths to find out what the (current interpretations of) the rules of the game are. 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/AwUBOdoopr2UW3au93vOEQLuBQCePZxnwmGlSQM4IDKislUHEGoEnboAnRRu qzK9ufDS54la7WBpvLv4HHFj =6Ra9 -----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 Oct 4 06:38:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e93Kbwq10943 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 06:37:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e93Kbqt10938 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 06:37:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivet2t.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.116.93]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA08539 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 16:37:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001003163727.01348570@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 16:37:27 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] L24 and ACBLLC Minutes In-Reply-To: <037001c02d0b$7b177940$189c1e18@san.rr.com> References: <3.0.1.32.20001002172034.0134c5a8@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 12:23 AM 10/3/2000 -0700, Marv wrote: >Mike Dennis wrote: >Also the right of defenders (in ACBL-land) to ask partner about a >possible revoke seems to violate L73A1. > >Note, however, that even if some violations of a Law "enjoy specific >legal approval," that does not mean all violations are okay. They must >be specifically approved. >> >> I think that the ACBL's policy with respect to correcting the >direction of >> misturned cards is of the same cut of cloth, and I can live with it. >I >> really don't know how to read L73A1, in light of L42B2. >> >Just assume that L73A1 fails to reference some permitted exceptions to >what it says, as it should. Laws should not have mutual conflicts. > Certainly it _does_ "fail to reference" any exceptions whatsoever, so I don't need to assume this. It seems like you're saying I should assume that it does say what it obviously does not say, so as to pretend that the Laws have no mutual conflicts. I agree that there should not be any, but do not accept as a reasonable deduction that there are none. And if I do assume that there are exceptions to L73A1, then the ACBL's policy starts to seem more reasonable. After all, if we are entitled to invent exceptions here on BLML, the ACBL should be no less empowered. 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 Oct 4 07:59:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e93LxL811018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 07:59:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e93LxGt11014 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 07:59:16 +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, 3 Oct 2000 14:59:31 -0700 Message-ID: <042d01c02d84$f79453c0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.1.32.20001002172034.0134c5a8@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001003163727.01348570@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] L24 and ACBLLC Minutes Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 14:57:43 -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 Mike Dennis wrote: > Marv wrote: > >Just assume that L73A1 fails to reference some permitted exceptions to > >what it says, as it should. Laws should not have mutual conflicts. > > > Certainly it _does_ "fail to reference" any exceptions whatsoever, so I > don't need to assume this. It seems like you're saying I should assume > that it does say what it obviously does not say, so as to pretend that the > Laws have no mutual conflicts. I agree that there should not be any, but do > not accept as a reasonable deduction that there are none. You should assume it because there *are* exceptions, which create mutual conflicts that have to be resolved. You either follow L73A1 to the letter and say that conflicting Laws cannot be followed, or vice versa. Vice-versa seems more logical, and the only way to do that is to assume that the Lawmakers forgot to reference exceptions to L73A1. Of course another way out is to say that Laws not written under L73A1 are not governed by L73A1, but that is logodaedalic chop-logic that I do not understand. It has been used to justify regulatory conflicts with L80F, for instance. > And if I do assume that there are exceptions to L73A1, then the ACBL's > policy starts to seem more reasonable. After all, if we are entitled to > invent exceptions here on BLML, the ACBL should be no less empowered. > We are not entitled, the ACBL is not entitled, only the WBFLC is entitled. It has created Laws that conflict with L73A1, but that does not entitle others to do so. 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 Oct 4 08:05:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e93M5ZU11039 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 08:05:35 +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 e93M5Ut11035 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 08:05:30 +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, 3 Oct 2000 15:05:46 -0700 Message-ID: <043001c02d85$d6da39a0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000929085021.00a9a200@127.0.0.1> <000e01c02a16$e6fc10a0$23c3e080@isi.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20001002084552.00aba4a0@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Alerts Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 15:03:56 -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: > Eric Landau wrote: > > >Consider 1NT-P-3C. Pair 1 defines this as "semi-solid six-card suit, no > >outside strength". Pair 2 defines this as "semi-solid six-card suit, about > >an ace or equivalent on the side". Are these pairs playing the same > >thing? Would at least one of these treatments require an alert? > > > >Try again. 1NT-P-3C. Pair 1, who are playing 16-18 1NT, define this as > >"semi-solid six-card suit, game-invitational values". Pair 2, who are > >playing 12-14 1NT, define this as "semi-solid six-card suit, > >game-invitational values". Are these pairs playing the same thing? Would > >at least one of these treatments require an alert? > > There is no particular reason to alert in either case. An alert or > failure does not paint a full and detailed description of the agreement. > Q&A or the CC is needed for detail. > Looking at the current ACBL CC, there is plenty of room to describe a jump to three in any suit, with a blank line provided for each suit. At present, the jumps are Alertable if non-forcing, otherwise not Alertable. Makes sense. My CC has for all four jumps: "Forcing - Slam Interest." No need for Q&A, despite no Alert. For Eric's examples there is perhaps not enough room to write the full explantions without resorting to the annoying miniature script one sometimes sees. HOwever, a short description can be amplified by the Alert explanation, if one is requested. Am I missing the point 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 Wed Oct 4 08:13:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e93MD1i11057 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 08:13:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e93MCtt11053 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 08:12:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208.167.55.58.stnd.fuwa.net (default.9oakhill.com) [208.167.55.58] by osiris.watchic.net with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #1 (Debian)) id 13gaSL-00013Y-00; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 18:22:38 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001003181120.00af44e0@watchic.net> X-Sender: timg@watchic.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 18:12:30 -0400 To: From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Alerts In-Reply-To: <043001c02d85$d6da39a0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000929085021.00a9a200@127.0.0.1> <000e01c02a16$e6fc10a0$23c3e080@isi.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20001002084552.00aba4a0@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 03:03 PM 10/3/00 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >My CC has for all four jumps: "Forcing - Slam Interest." No need for >Q&A, despite no Alert. > >Am I missing the point here? I think so. "Forcing" is not enough. You need to tell the opponents how many HCPs the bid shows. 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 Oct 4 09:05:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e93N4gC11103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 09:04:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e93N4at11099 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 09:04:36 +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 QAA25796; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 16:04:28 -0700 Message-Id: <200010032304.QAA25796@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Alerts In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 03 Oct 2000 18:12:30 PDT." <4.3.2.7.2.20001003181120.00af44e0@watchic.net> Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 16:04:30 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: > At 03:03 PM 10/3/00 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: > > >My CC has for all four jumps: "Forcing - Slam Interest." No need for > >Q&A, despite no Alert. > > > >Am I missing the point here? > > I think so. "Forcing" is not enough. You need to tell the opponents how > many HCPs the bid shows. There's an implied smiley there, right? -- 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 Oct 4 09:24:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e93NMPw11125 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 09:22:25 +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 e93NMIt11119 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 09:22:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13gbO1-000Ggw-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 00:22:14 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 18:07:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L24 and ACBLLC Minutes References: <010501c02cb8$f6481e60$db11f7a5@oemcomputer> In-Reply-To: <010501c02cb8$f6481e60$db11f7a5@oemcomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: >We must remember that many bridge players do not give a fig about the fine >points of the law. They should get a precis of any changes that affect them >and they should know where they could learn more...but after that some tips >from an expert or a Victor Mollo or David Bird piece or even some ads for >upcoming tourneys may make a better use of the space for them. After all >there are only a few hundred of us on this list out of how many in the >world? Could you justify using someone's due money to print our our erudite >deliberations for every bridge player in the world? One test of interest may >be the sale of law books...how many non-directors have bought a copy? We >have trouble getting them to RTFLB! Let's be pleased that the ACBL has taken >an excellent step forward by placing this matter on the website, where those >of us who care CAN find it. After all if everyone were interested, case >books would be giving Tom Clancy a run for his money :-)) It does not matter whether the average player reads them or not, they should be easily available to him. The bulletin is long enough to have a regular section on ACBL regs. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 4 09:24:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e93NMTe11128 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 09:22:29 +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-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 e93NMJt11120 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 09:22:20 +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 13gbO1-000Ggv-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 00:22:13 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 18:06:18 +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: 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: <3.0.6.32.20001003131041.0089ddf0@pop.ulb.ac.be> >alain gottcheiner wrote: > >> AG : please note that 'rule of 18' does regulate hands that aren't >> 'a king below average', for example, nice 4432 9-counts. What are >> the grounds for that ? Not law 40, obviously (which, by the way, >> permits legislation about overcalls, which hasn't been done often). > >Isn't "rule of 19/18/17" a guide to hand evaluation/explanation rather >than a piece of legislation? It is used by some authorities as part of their regulations [eg EBU, ABF] and used to be used by more authorities [eg EBL, WBF]. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 4 09:55:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e93NswP11159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 09:54:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e93Nsqt11155 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 09:54:52 +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 13gbtY-000Hk3-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 00:54:48 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 00:54:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] System crash 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 , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > >In the thread Laws Articles from Maastricht, Herman De Wael wrote: > >"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." > >While it is true that you have no right to be informed about an opponent's >misbid, you do have a right to be correctly informed about the opponents' >systemic agreements. Therefore, you are entitled to the knowledge that the >opponents are having a bidding mistake if one of them makes a >*non-systemic* call. > >Just such a case occurred last night. Pard opened 1NT (11-14), RHO >overcalled 2C (alerted and explained as any one-suited hand), I bid 2H >(natural signoff), LHO passed, and pard bid 2S! > >Questions 1: Since 2S was non-systemic, should it be alerted so that the >opponents are aware that a wheel has fallen off? Or is this improperly >waking up pard, since only unusual partnership *agreements* need be >alerted? Or is the fact that 2S is non-systemic an *agreement*? > >Question 2: Given that in our system a 1NT opening denies a 5-card major, >there are various possibilities as to why pard has called 2S, for example: > >a) Pard did not intentionally psyche, but missorted his hand (putting >spades in the club suit), and has now discovered a 7-3-3-0 shape. > He'll pass 2H and back in later. By bidding now he suggests a heart fit. >b) Pard has a maximum with 4-card heart support, and has invented a long >suit trial bid (which we play in other sequences). > probable >c) Pard has not noticed RHO's overcall, and is completing a transfer. > possible >d) Pard has psyched with a weak hand and a long spade suit. > same as a) >Given that there are at least four different options as to why pard has >made his *non-systemic* call, is it Lawful for me to act according to >possibility d)? > >Question 3: At the table pard alerted 2H, giving me UI that possibility c) >was correct. What LAs remain to me now? > You probably have to bid 3H. You can pass 3S over that. >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/ -- 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 Oct 4 13:12:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9439u911328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 13:09:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9439nt11323 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 13:09:50 +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 ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 20:10:04 -0700 Message-ID: <050101c02db0$5571f6c0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200010032304.QAA25796@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Alerts Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 20:08:06 -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 Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Tim Goodwin wrote: > > > At 03:03 PM 10/3/00 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > >My CC has for all four jumps: "Forcing - Slam Interest." No need for > > >Q&A, despite no Alert. > > > > > >Am I missing the point here? > > > > I think so. "Forcing" is not enough. You need to tell the opponents how > > many HCPs the bid shows. > > There's an implied smiley there, right? > Whoops, I missed that possibility. Marv -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 4 13:25:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e943P9A11351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 13:25:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e943P3t11347 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 13:25:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivetf0.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.117.224]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA12365 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 23:24:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001003232436.0134b76c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 23:24:36 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] L24 and ACBLLC Minutes In-Reply-To: <042d01c02d84$f79453c0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> References: <3.0.1.32.20001002172034.0134c5a8@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001003163727.01348570@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 02:57 PM 10/3/2000 -0700, Marv wrote: >> And if I do assume that there are exceptions to L73A1, then the >ACBL's >> policy starts to seem more reasonable. After all, if we are entitled >to >> invent exceptions here on BLML, the ACBL should be no less >empowered. >> >We are not entitled, the ACBL is not entitled, only the WBFLC is >entitled. It has created Laws that conflict with L73A1, but that does >not entitle others to do so. Oh, the WBFLC _is_ entitled to write mutually contrary Laws, but those of us in the real world are not entitled to resolve those contradictions in the way that seems most satisfactory to us? 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 Wed Oct 4 17:04:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9472Op11465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 17:02:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9472Gt11461 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 17:02:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.16] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13giZ4-000KF1-00; Wed, 04 Oct 2000 08:02:06 +0100 Message-ID: <002401c02dd1$306034c0$105608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] Fw: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 07:56:23 +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 "I shall light a candle of understanding in thine heart, which shall not be put out." [Esdras] ----- Original Message ----- From: Mail Delivery System To: Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 12:19 AM Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender > A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its > recipients. The following address(es) failed: > ------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------ > > Return-path: > Received: from [195.8.89.60] (helo=dodona) > by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) > id 13gbLd-000GJg-00; Wed, 04 Oct 2000 00:19:46 +0100 > Message-ID: <000601c02d90$99398c80$3c5908c3@dodona> > From: "Grattan Endicott" > To: , > > References: > Subject: Re: [BLML] System crash > Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 21:03:45 +0100 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > X-Priority: 3 > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 > > > Grattan Endicott > "I shall light a candle of understanding in > thine heart, which shall not be put out." > [Esdras] > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 3:05 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] System crash > > > > > > > > c) Pard has not noticed RHO's overcall, and is completing a transfer. > > > > Given that there are at least four different options as to why pard has > > made his *non-systemic* call, is it Lawful for me to act according to > > possibility d)? > > > > Question 3: At the table pard alerted 2H, giving me UI that possibility > c) > > was correct. What LAs remain to me now? > > > +=+ Your procedure is to take it that he has > understood your bid correctly, and has bid > 2S on this basis. Continue as you would if > this were the case. As far as you are concerned, > since you have the UI, the one thing he has not > done is to complete a transfer. > The biggest problem exists when you have > no agreed meaning for such a bid. I would have > sympathy then for a pass since you 'do not > know' what partner is doing and 'if he wants to > play Spades let him get on 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 Wed Oct 4 20:18:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e94AFk411575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 20:15:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e94AFTt11570 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 20:15:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-5-42.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.5.42]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA27447; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 12:15:07 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39D9E67E.8BB3B78A@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 16:00:30 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws , fifth friday , sostrikov@alfabank.ru, arseny.shur@usu.ru, nick@ieie.nsc.ru, jkuchen@ehc.edu, ilczuk@ulam.im.pwr.wroc.pl, jan.romanski@icl.com Subject: [BLML] fourth blml - ss finland simultaneous tournament Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On the 31st of October of this year, the game of contract bridge will celebrate it's 75th birthday. Three years ago, I started celebrating the birthday of bridge by organising the (first ?) simultaneous tournament with post-factum scoring over the internet. In honour of the ship on which Mr Vanderbilt, back in 1925, originated the game of contract bridge, the tournament was called : the BLML-ss Finland Challenge. This month we will celebrate the fourth celebration of this tournament. The fifth-friday regulars are of course pre-inscribed. Other interested parties please write me for more details. Play possible in your clubs between wednesday 25 october and thursday 2 november. -- 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 Oct 4 21:57:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e94Bujh11631 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 21:56:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e94Budt11627 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 21:56:39 +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 e94BuYT63699 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 07:56:34 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20001004074005.00b7edf0@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, 04 Oct 2000 07:58:27 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Articles from Maastricht In-Reply-To: <39D8A3CF.98BD6A34@village.uunet.be> References: <003f01c027e9$bec022e0$c4dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000929080523.00ab7730@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20001002090721.00a9ac40@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 11:03 AM 10/2/00, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > > > At 10:51 AM 9/29/00, Herman wrote: > > > > Correct; one does not have the right to the knowledge that opponents are > > having a misunderstanding. But one does, now (by L73D1, except where it > > has been abridged under L80E, my original point being that this is not > > ideal, but rather a practical compromise with reality), and should (if > > possible in practice), have the right to observe one's opponents and, if > > one judges that they are likely to be having a misunderstanding, to choose > > one's actions accordingly, at one's own risk, with, of course, no redress > > if one has made a false assumption. > >Exactly. If one has the information, then it is authorized. >But one does not have the right to this. >It is not what I call "entitled" information. >Now what was your point ? > > > These are not at all the same > > thing. One can make the case that if we take away the latter, bridge would > > be a better game (although I would disagree), but cannot reasonably argue > > that it would not be a very different one. My point, originally expressed in the post to which Herman replied initially, is this: Table feel, i.e. the art of determining one's tactics by taking into account one's opponents manner, tempo, etc. (that would constitute UI if coming from one's partner), is one of the things that gives bridge its unique challenge. It is one of the skills that differentiate between experts and non-experts. It would be stultifying for it to be removed from the game, leaving us with only the equivalent of playing against anonymous opponents by computer. Current screen rules succeed in reducing the flow of UI between partners, which is their objective, but pay a price in reducing the flow of AI between opponents, which reduces the scope for the use of legitimate table feel. This is a cost we are willing to pay to achieve the objective. But in considering new or different screen rules, we should strive to keep that cost to a minimum. My argument is with those who see the elimination of table feel from the game as a potential benefit to be pursued in designing the screen rules rather than a cost to be minimized. 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 Oct 4 22:05:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e94C5C911699 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 22:05:12 +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 e94C56t11695 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 22:05:06 +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 e94C52T64186 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 08:05:02 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20001004080300.00b78950@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, 04 Oct 2000 08:06:55 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Alerts In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20001002084552.00aba4a0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20000929085021.00a9a200@127.0.0.1> <000e01c02a16$e6fc10a0$23c3e080@isi.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20001002084552.00aba4a0@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 07:02 AM 10/3/00, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > >Consider 1NT-P-3C. Pair 1 defines this as "semi-solid six-card suit, no > >outside strength". Pair 2 defines this as "semi-solid six-card suit, about > >an ace or equivalent on the side". Are these pairs playing the same > >thing? Would at least one of these treatments require an alert? > > > >Try again. 1NT-P-3C. Pair 1, who are playing 16-18 1NT, define this as > >"semi-solid six-card suit, game-invitational values". Pair 2, who are > >playing 12-14 1NT, define this as "semi-solid six-card suit, > >game-invitational values". Are these pairs playing the same thing? Would > >at least one of these treatments require an alert? > > There is no particular reason to alert in either case. An alert or >failure does not paint a full and detailed description of the agreement. >Q&A or the CC is needed for detail. This is true. And this is what I was trying to get across, but with "should not" in place of "does not". The example was designed to point to just one of the many problems raised by those who favor an alert procedure based on a baseline system, in which an alert or failure to alert would (in theory) paint a full and detailed description of the agreement. 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 Oct 4 22:26:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e94CQQd11751 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 22:26:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e94CQGt11747 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 22:26:17 +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 e94CQCT65603 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 08:26:13 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20001004082349.00b72cf0@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, 04 Oct 2000 08:28:06 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Alerts In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20001003181120.00af44e0@watchic.net> References: <043001c02d85$d6da39a0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000929085021.00a9a200@127.0.0.1> <000e01c02a16$e6fc10a0$23c3e080@isi.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20001002084552.00aba4a0@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 06:12 PM 10/3/00, Tim wrote: >At 03:03 PM 10/3/00 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: > >>My CC has for all four jumps: "Forcing - Slam Interest." No need for >>Q&A, despite no Alert. >> >>Am I missing the point here? > >I think so. "Forcing" is not enough. You need to tell the opponents how >many HCPs the bid shows. I seek reassurance that Tim suffers, as I do, from smileyphobia, and is making a joke here. I'm sure he's much too good a player to expect an answer to his implied question, "How many HCP do you need to have slam interest?" Be careful, Tim. Someone at the ACBL might read this and put you on the next alert-procedure-revision committee. Or is that what you were trying for? 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 Oct 4 23:18:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e94DI7r11805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 23:18:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e94DI1t11801 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 23:18:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208.167.55.39.stnd.fuwa.net (default.9oakhill.com) [208.167.55.39] by osiris.watchic.net with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #1 (Debian)) id 13goaK-0004B2-00; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 09:27:49 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001004090804.00aee100@watchic.net> X-Sender: timg@watchic.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 09:17:30 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Alerts In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20001004082349.00b72cf0@127.0.0.1> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001003181120.00af44e0@watchic.net> <043001c02d85$d6da39a0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000929085021.00a9a200@127.0.0.1> <000e01c02a16$e6fc10a0$23c3e080@isi.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20001002084552.00aba4a0@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 08:28 AM 10/4/00 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 06:12 PM 10/3/00, Tim wrote: > >>At 03:03 PM 10/3/00 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >> >>>My CC has for all four jumps: "Forcing - Slam Interest." No need for >>>Q&A, despite no Alert. >>> >>>Am I missing the point here? >> >>I think so. "Forcing" is not enough. You need to tell the opponents how >>many HCPs the bid shows. > >I seek reassurance that Tim suffers, as I do, from smileyphobia, and is >making a joke here. I'm sure he's much too good a player to expect an >answer to his implied question, "How many HCP do you need to have slam >interest?" Is it also a joke that some sponsoring organizations interpret "a King or more below average strength" to mean 7 or fewer high card points? Maybe the ACBL also suffers from smileyphobia: is there an implied ;-) after the regulation which forbids agreements to open the bidding at the one level with fewer than 8 HCP? 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 Oct 5 09:56:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e94Nsp012267 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 09:54:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e94Nsit12263 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 09:54:45 +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 13gyMp-000CVF-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 00:54:32 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 00:53:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Laws article from Brighton MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In my series of articles for Bulletins I wrote three articles for the Bulletin at the EBU Summer congress at Brighton this year. I also wrote up some appeals - the first time this has been done at Brighton - but I shall leave them for the time being since all the appeals this year are to be written up and put on the web. The three articles are Memories of Brighton [1] New powers for TDs Memories of Brighton [2] I shall post all three on RGB, and the second one also here on BLML. The first and third are on my Bridgepage, and the second on my Lawspage. Please note that the following article was written specifically for English readers. ------------ New powers for TDs By David Stevenson Following a change in approach at World Bridge Federation level, it was decided to give Tournament Directors some powers previously only available to Appeals Committees. This involved Law 12C3, which means that when the Director assigns a score after something has gone wrong (for example after a mis-explanation has damaged opponents) rather than give the non-offenders the best score they might possibly have got (which is sometimes a very harsh ruling), he can now give a weighted score, ie a percentage of one score and a percentage of another. In England this has been permitted since August 1st. To make it clearer, here is an example from the first match last night. Match 1 Board 6 S 8 Vul E/W H 7 Dealer E D KQJ963 C Q10943 S A43 S Q97 H J1064 H A852 D 854 D A2 C AJ5 C K862 S KJ10652 Result: H KQ93 3H-2 by East D 107 NS+200 C 7 West North East South - - 1C 1S Dbl 2D 2H 2S 2NT No 3H AP Double showed hearts, and 2NT was a natural game try. Unfortunately East described it differently, and South did not realise West had a balanced hand. He felt he might have doubled if he had. South was certainly misinformed, so how should the TD, John Probst, adjust it? He felt that a double by South was far from certain anyway (somewhere between 1 time in 4 and 1 time in 6), and eventually gave a weighted score of 3Hdoubled - 2 one quarter of the time, 3H - 2 the rest of the time. This feels fairer than giving South nothing, or awarding him the full effects of a double that he might or might not have made. Players seem to find this type of ruling very 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 Thu Oct 5 11:01:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9510Zf12338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 11:00:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9510Ut12334 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 11:00:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA03457 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 10:55:38 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 05 Oct 2000 11:56:22 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] System crash To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 11:57:20 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 05/10/2000 11:53:16 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On the 4th July, in the thread "Alert?", I proposed the following regulation which clarified obligations under L75 after UI from pard: *If unauthorised information (for example partner's explanation, alert, failure to alert or hesitation) demonstrates that you have misbid, you must continue to call as if your original misbid was in fact a partnership agreement. Meanwhile, any alerts and explanations you give must be according to the agreed partnership system. If your alerts and/or explanations tell partner that you initially misbid, this information is also unauthorised. Then partner is obliged to act as if all your calls are part of the agreed partnership system. Should either you or partner make a non-systemic call during such an auction, such a call must be construed according to agreed partnership style, NOT on the assumption that partner has earlier misbid or been earlier misunderstood.* In light of the principles stated above, here are my answers to my own questions posed at the start of the current thread. >Just such a case occurred last night. Pard opened 1NT >(11-14), RHO overcalled 2C (alerted and explained as any >one-suited hand), I bid 2H (natural signoff), LHO passed, >and pard bid 2S! >Questions 1: Since 2S was non-systemic, should it be >alerted so that the opponents are aware that a wheel has >fallen off? Or is this improperly waking up pard, since >only unusual partnership *agreements* need be alerted? >Or is the fact that 2S is non-systemic an *agreement*? My answer to Questions 1: The opponents are entitled to alerted to your agreement that such a 2S call by partner is not part of your system. A clearer case is when pard passes what systemically is a forcing call - it is imperative that the opponents should be alerted to the likelihood that partner has psyched. >Question 2: Given that in our system a 1NT opening >denies a 5-card major, there are various possibilities as >to why pard has called 2S, for example: >a) Pard did not intentionally psyche, but missorted his >hand (putting spades in the club suit), and has now >discovered a 7-3-3-0 shape. >b) Pard has a maximum with 4-card heart support, and has >invented a long suit trial bid (which we play in other >sequences). >c) Pard has not noticed RHO's overcall, and is completing >a transfer. >d) Pard has psyched with a weak hand and a long spade suit. >Given that there are at least four different options as to >why pard has made his *non-systemic* call, is it Lawful for >me to act according to possibility d)? My answer to Question 2: If a psyche is only one of *several* options to explain a non-systemic call by pard, correctly assuming that pard has psyched is illegal fielding. >Question 3: At the table pard alerted 2H, giving me UI that >possibility c) was correct. What LAs remain to me now? My answer to Question 3: I do not agree with Herman De Wael that since pard's 2S is non-systemic I am lawfully allowed to act on possibility c) after the UI of pard's alert. Now I must assume that pard has not accidentally or deliberately misbid, and is acting in accordance with partnership style, leaving possibility b) as the only remaining Lawful assumption. So at the table I accepted pard's *long suit trial*, and jumped to 4H. This was a 5-2 fit missing three trump tricks. But virtue was rewarded when pard had perfectly fitting honours in the side suits, so we scored +620. 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 Oct 5 12:20:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e952KTa12392 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 12:20:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e952KLt12388 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 12:20:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e94JTWU00342 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 19:29:32 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: "Bridge-Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Commission Notes on ACBL website Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 18:36:52 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <002a01c02d2a$d5b59f20$874c5c18@midsouth.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <002a01c02d2a$d5b59f20$874c5c18@midsouth.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00100419293101.00177@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 03 Oct 2000, Chyah Burghard wrote: > The minutes of the Laws Commission is already > available at the following address: > > http://www.acbl.org/tournaments/LawsCommission.htm The interpretations which come from these meetings need to be disseminated more widely. For example, I raised a case to some discussion on BLML and which I discovered had been answered in these minutes; nobody mentioned that the case was settled. The situation: South claimed three of the last four tricks. West found a play by East which, combined with a normal misplay by declarer which was consistent with the claim, would lead to two tricks for declarer on the actual layout, but which could cost a trick on a different layout. Should the defense get the trick even though East would not have found the play at the table? Should the defense get the trick if the play by East would be irrational without double-dummy play (risking throwing away the setting trick)? The March 21, 1998 minutes contain the statement: "When a claim occurs, both opponents (including dummy in the case of a defender's claim) have the right to inspect their opponent's cards and confer before they acquiesce. If the non-claiming side can show a line of play, consistent with the claim statement, that produces more tricks for their side, the director should award them those tricks." This answers both questions. The table director did not have access to this guideline, but happened to rule correctly that the defenders get the trick (it was the first case). Not having read the minutes, I would have gotten the second case wrong, assuming that the defenders are also barred from making irrational plays for claim adjudication. -- 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 Thu Oct 5 12:24:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e952O8m12406 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 12:24:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e952O2t12401 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 12:24:03 +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, 4 Oct 2000 19:24:18 -0700 Message-ID: <067601c02e73$00cb15c0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws article from Brighton Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 19:20:03 -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 David Stevenson wrote: > To make it clearer, here is an example from the first match last > night. > > Match 1 > Board 6 S 8 > Vul E/W H 7 > Dealer E D KQJ963 > C Q10943 > S A43 S Q97 > H J1064 H A852 > D 854 D A2 > C AJ5 C K862 > S KJ10652 > Result: H KQ93 > 3H-2 by East D 107 > NS+200 C 7 > > West North East South > - - 1C 1S > Dbl 2D 2H 2S > 2NT No 3H AP > > Double showed hearts, and 2NT was a natural game try. Unfortunately > East described it differently, and South did not realise West had a > balanced hand. He felt he might have doubled if he had. > > South was certainly misinformed, so how should the TD, John Probst, > adjust it? He felt that a double by South was far from certain anyway > (somewhere between 1 time in 4 and 1 time in 6), and eventually gave a > weighted score of 3Hdoubled - 2 one quarter of the time, 3H - 2 the rest > of the time. This feels fairer than giving South nothing, or awarding > him the full effects of a double that he might or might not have made. > Players seem to find this type of ruling very fair. > Can't we be told what East's description was, and when he gave it? It might help us understand why a normal-seeming auction resulted in damaging MI. Players are probably relieved when decisions do not go entirely against them, lessening the inclination to complain. Question: Does L12C3's application always result in balanced adjustments for both sides? It seems like the OS should get less benefit of doubt than the NOS, given that John Probst's crystal ball does not provide exact answers. 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 Oct 5 12:55:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e952t7O12440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 12:55:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e952swt12436 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 12:54:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e94K47200362 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 20:04:07 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] System crash Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 19:30:43 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00100420040602.00177@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 05 Oct 2000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > On the 4th July, in the thread "Alert?", I proposed the following > regulation which clarified obligations under L75 after UI from pard: > > *If unauthorised information (for example partner's explanation, alert, > failure to alert or hesitation) demonstrates that you have misbid, you must > continue to call as if your original misbid was in fact a partnership > agreement. Meanwhile, any alerts and explanations you give must be > according to the agreed partnership system. > > If your alerts and/or explanations tell partner that you initially misbid, > this information is also unauthorised. Then partner is obliged to act as > if all your calls are part of the agreed partnership system. > > Should either you or partner make a non-systemic call during such an > auction, such a call must be construed according to agreed partnership > style, NOT on the assumption that partner has earlier misbid or been > earlier misunderstood.* I would add a clarification: if the call is impossible under partnership style, you may assume a misunderstanding. The classic example is 1NT-2NT!-3C, where the 2NT bidder had a normal 2NT raise and opener alerted the bid as a transfer. The consensus in this case is that you do not need to assume partner has suddenly discovered that his spades are clubs, or psyched with a long club suit. Responder can bid 3NT based on the AI from the auction. This contrasts with the transfer mix-up in the actual case: 1NT-(2C!)-2H!-(P)-2S, where 2H was intended as a natural sign-off, Here, 2S is a possible response (game try of some kind). > So at the table I accepted pard's *long suit trial*, and jumped to 4H. > This was a 5-2 fit missing three trump tricks. But virtue was rewarded > when pard had perfectly fitting honours in the side suits, so we scored > +620. Did partner have UI (from your alert or explanation of 2S)? If so, then he must treat 4H according to system, which might be a splinter. if 2S was not alerted or questioned, partner does have the right to guess that a wheel has fallen off rather than that you are trying for slam. -- 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 Thu Oct 5 16:50:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e956nXw12615 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 16:49:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e956nRt12610 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 16:49:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id QAA09660 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 16:44:32 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 05 Oct 2000 17:45:14 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] The Masochism Tango To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 17:46:18 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 05/10/2000 05:42:09 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In the thread *System crash*, David J Grabiner wrote: >I would add a clarification: if the call is impossible >under partnership style, you may assume a misunderstanding. >The classic example is 1NT-2NT!-3C, where the 2NT bidder >had a normal 2NT raise and opener alerted the bid as a >transfer. The consensus in this case is that you do not >need to assume partner has suddenly discovered that his >spades are clubs, or psyched with a long club suit. >Responder can bid 3NT based on the AI from the auction. [snip] If David's example auction occurred at my table, this is what would happen: 1NT - 2NT (which I think is natural and invitational) - 3C (which I deduce as showing a maximum 1NT opening with six clubs and a worthless doubleton in a major, offering a choice of contracts between 3NT and 5C) - 5C. David is scoring +600 in 3NT, while I am masochistically going -1100 in my 3-2 club fit at the five level. *** Another example of my masochism occurred in a teams event many years ago. As dealer, vul against not, I held: KJ10x x AJxx xxxx I passed, LHO opened a classical weak two in hearts, pard passed and RHO passed. There is only one LA here - a reopening double. Sure there is a risk of going for a number when RHO is lurking with a strongish hand which misfits LHO's hearts. But in the long run many more imps are gained by doubling than by masochistically passing. However, as was my right under L40A, I chose the pass. Sure enough, this cost 14 imps when we scored +200 instead of +800 (teammates were -600 vs 3NT). It takes two to tango. Pard had not been able to pass in tempo, due to her unexpected holding of 19 points and 5 hearts. Question 1: Given that any element of risk in reopening was now known to be non-existent after pard's trance, does the hesitation *create* a LA which did not previously exist? Question 2: If the answer to the previous question is *No*, was I selfishly sacrificing imps which belonged to my team, merely to preserve my personal holier-than-thou ethical reputation? 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 Oct 5 19:08:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9597mI12718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 19:07:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9597gt12714 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 19:07:43 +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 13h705-0004yZ-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 09:07:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 09:12:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] System crash References: <00100420040602.00177@psa836> In-Reply-To: <00100420040602.00177@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: >The classic example is 1NT-2NT!-3C, where the 2NT bidder had a normal >2NT raise and opener alerted the bid as a transfer. The consensus in >this case is that you do not need to assume partner has suddenly >discovered that his spades are clubs, or psyched with a long club suit. >Responder can bid 3NT based on the AI from the auction. Why? 3C is a perfectly normal bid showing a minimum with a long club suit, expecting partner to pass unless he has a club fit. -- 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 Oct 5 23:50:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e95Dn0q12998 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 23:49:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e95Dmrt12994 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 23:48:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-180.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.180]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA03816 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 15:48:43 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39DC5332.BAB3E1AC@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 12:08:50 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] System crash 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: > > On the 4th July, in the thread "Alert?", I proposed the following > regulation which clarified obligations under L75 after UI from pard: > > *If unauthorised information (for example partner's explanation, alert, > failure to alert or hesitation) demonstrates that you have misbid, you must > continue to call as if your original misbid was in fact a partnership > agreement. Meanwhile, any alerts and explanations you give must be > according to the agreed partnership system. > Perfectly correct, and I assume universally accepted. You know my position. The same holds if the unauthorised information only indicates that you may have misbid, and also if the information merely suggests that partner has a different idea. > > My answer to Question 3: I do not agree with Herman De Wael that since > pard's 2S is non-systemic I am lawfully allowed to act on possibility c) > after the UI of pard's alert. > > Now I must assume that pard has not accidentally or deliberately misbid, > and is acting in accordance with partnership style, leaving possibility b) > as the only remaining Lawful assumption. > My point is that you may have AI available that gives option c some credence. If you are playing with a less than regular partner, if you have no recollection of clearly stating that 2He in this situation is not transfer, if long suit trials are not in your system; all those things could be AI that allow you to pass. So much depends on the circumstances that I would not dare contradict you if you say that in your case, pass is not a LA. > So at the table I accepted pard's *long suit trial*, and jumped to 4H. > This was a 5-2 fit missing three trump tricks. But virtue was rewarded > when pard had perfectly fitting honours in the side suits, so we scored > +620. > You are one of those lucky bridge players. Me, I always get such contracts for -1. Mind you, I also get completely cold lay-out at -1 : AKxxxx xxxx xx x opposite x AKQ Kx AKQxxxx in six no trumps on a spade lead. No, clubs were not 4-1. I played a club in the second round. -- 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 Oct 6 00:41:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e95EeoA13045 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 00:40:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e95Eekt13041 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 00:40:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id na968981 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 00:39:12 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-012-p-227-46.tmns.net.au ([203.54.227.46]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-Pony-Tailed-MailRouter V2.9b 13/15144960); 06 Oct 2000 00:39:11 Message-ID: <008c01c02ee2$8ddc8560$45e236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] The Masochism Tango Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 01:40:13 +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 Richard Hills wrote: > >Another example of my masochism occurred in a teams event >many years ago. As dealer, vul against not, I held: > >KJ10x x AJxx xxxx > >I passed, LHO opened a classical weak two in hearts, pard >passed and RHO passed. > >There is only one LA here - a reopening double. Sure there >is a risk of going for a number when RHO is lurking with a >strongish hand which misfits LHO's hearts. But in the long >run many more imps are gained by doubling than by >masochistically passing. > >However, as was my right under L40A, I chose the pass. Sure >enough, this cost 14 imps when we scored +200 instead of >+800 (teammates were -600 vs 3NT). > >It takes two to tango. Pard had not been able to pass in >tempo, due to her unexpected holding of 19 points and >5 hearts. > >Question 1: Given that any element of risk in reopening was >now known to be non-existent after pard's trance, does the >hesitation *create* a LA which did not previously exist? > >Question 2: If the answer to the previous question is *No*, >was I selfishly sacrificing imps which belonged to my team, >merely to preserve my personal holier-than-thou ethical >reputation? No, I don't think that you are really "preserving your reputation" when nobody except the four players at the table is aware of the actively ethical stance which you have taken. I admire your action, despite my knowledge (which you share, but which an AC might misjudge on a bad day) that your peers (i.e aggressive-bidding top Aussie players) would never pass out 2H. There's no rule against being ultra-ethical and having higher personal standards than the Laws require, as far as I know. Peter Gill Sydney Australia. Footnote to Grattan: if you don't want "rejection messages" when replying to Richard Hills' posts, then don't use a "Reply To All" option. Richard Hills and "rgb.anu.edu.au" are both in Canberra, so Richard seems to use a shortcut-eddress to post to BLML, which will work for him but not for the rest of us. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 6 03:26:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e95HPdf13224 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 03:25:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e95HPXt13220 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 03:25:33 +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, 5 Oct 2000 10:25:48 -0700 Message-ID: <06ac01c02ef0$dfbce060$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge-Laws" References: <002a01c02d2a$d5b59f20$874c5c18@midsouth.rr.com> <00100419293101.00177@psa836> Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Commission Notes on ACBL website Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 10:19:20 -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 Grabiner wrote: > > The interpretations which come from these meetings need to be > disseminated more widely. For example, I raised a case > to some discussion on BLML and which I discovered had been answered > in these minutes; nobody mentioned that the case was settled. What was the general opinion on BLML? I seem to remember some comments that were contrary to the ACBLLC interpretation quoted below. > > The situation: South claimed three of the last four tricks. West > found a play by East which, combined with a normal misplay by > declarer which was consistent with the claim, would lead to two > tricks for declarer on the actual layout, but which could cost a > trick on a different layout. Should the defense get the trick > even though East would not have found the play at the table? > Should the defense get the > trick if the play by East would be irrational without > double-dummy play (risking throwing away the setting trick)? > > The March 21, 1998 minutes contain the statement: > "When a claim occurs, both opponents (including dummy in the case of > a defender's claim) have the right to inspect their opponent's cards > and confer before they acquiesce. If the non-claiming side can show a > line of play, consistent with the claim statement, that produces more > tricks for their side, the director should award them those tricks." > > This answers both questions. The table director did not have access > to this guideline, but happened to rule correctly that the defenders > get the trick (it was the first case). Not having read the minutes, I > would have gotten the second case wrong, assuming that the defenders are > also barred from making irrational plays for claim adjudication. > Note that this excellent clarification goes against the "equity" philosophy presently being touted. L12C3 enthusiasts would no doubt want to calculate the probability that the defenders would find the line of play that invalidates the claim, and adjust accordingly. If someone wants to defend that approach, I'm sure Adam W. will have something to say. There are going to be some interesting threads coming out of the ACBLLC's published minutes. We should have some fun! David G. and others: Could you reduce your line length please? Reformatting replies to avoid line overflow is too time-consuming. Sometimes I extend mine to 80 to accommodate the messages of others, and then forget to reset for my own. Do we have a standard for this on BLML, David S.? 70? 68? Note how Grattan does such a good job in this regard. His line length must be set at 60 or so. 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 Oct 6 03:46:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e95HkOa13254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 03:46:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e95HkIt13250 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 03:46:19 +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, 5 Oct 2000 10:46:34 -0700 Message-ID: <06ad01c02ef3$c5f25ea0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] The Masochism Tango Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 10:43:24 -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 Richard Hills wrote: > > Another example of my masochism occurred in a teams event > many years ago. As dealer, vul against not, I held: > > KJ10x x AJxx xxxx > > I passed, LHO opened a classical weak two in hearts, pard > passed and RHO passed. > > There is only one LA here - a reopening double. Sure there > is a risk of going for a number when RHO is lurking with a > strongish hand which misfits LHO's hearts. But in the long > run many more imps are gained by doubling than by > masochistically passing. > > However, as was my right under L40A, I chose the pass. Sure > enough, this cost 14 imps when we scored +200 instead of > +800 (teammates were -600 vs 3NT). > > It takes two to tango. Pard had not been able to pass in > tempo, due to her unexpected holding of 19 points and > 5 hearts. > > Question 1: Given that any element of risk in reopening was > now known to be non-existent after pard's trance, does the > hesitation *create* a LA which did not previously exist? It demonstrably suggests action by you rather than inaction, but I see no logical alternative to doubling with that good a passed hand. Passing would be "unreasonable, eccentric, far-out" (as Kaplan put it), so you should double. Had you not been a passed hand, then you should pass. > > Question 2: If the answer to the previous question is *No*, > was I selfishly sacrificing imps which belonged to my team, > merely to preserve my personal holier-than-thou ethical > reputation? Yes, in a way, but it is good to see someone as ethical as you evidently are. Most players these days act according to what UI suggests if they see the decision as close, letting the opponents, TD, and AC correct their infraction. No harm done if they lose an appeal, except to their reputations. The NABC casebooks are full of examples. Ethical players lean in the other direction, taking an action suggested by UI only if it is clear-cut (not just to themselves, but to everyone). They don't want to win by misusing UI, and they have a regard for their reputations. Not "holier-than-thou," merely ethical. 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 Fri Oct 6 04:01:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e95I0oj13273 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 04:00:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e95I0jt13269 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 04:00:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot06.domain1.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ka350646 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 03:54:36 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-002-p-212-247.tmns.net.au ([203.54.212.247]) by mail1.bigpond.com (Claudes-Pungent-MailRouter V2.9c 1/3177887); 06 Oct 2000 03:54:36 Message-ID: <02a401c02efd$b611d740$45e236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] When To Call The Director? Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 04:39:04 +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 I have a procedural question about the Director's Ruling (below). Appeal No.18 ------------------- Board 27 None vul. Dealer South NORTH A 6 A K 5 A K J 10 6 5 3 6 WEST EAST 10 8 5 4 Q 10 6 4 Q J 8 3 2 Q 9 8 7 A K 9 7 3 Q 8 4 2 SOUTH K J 9 7 3 2 9 7 2 4 J 10 5 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH - - - 2D(1) Pass 3D (2) Pass 3S(3) Pass 4C Pass 5C Pass 5D All Pass (1) Multi (2) GF (or nearly) with diamonds (3) Weak 2 in spades, without diamond support Contract: Five diamonds, played by South Lead: King of Clubs Result: 11 tricks, NS +400 TD’s statement of Facts: The Director was called after the board had been played and scored, when West complained that he had not been told that four clubs showed shortness. The Director: The director, who was sitting at the table to check on the time problems, found that West should have called as soon as the dummy became visible, and concluded that there was no damage. PG: My question is: should West have called the Director as soon as dummy appeared? Or at the end of the hand? Is one procedure preferable to the other? I suppose my question could be rephrased as: does the sight of dummy equal "attention being drawn to an irregularity"? 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 Oct 6 04:03:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e95I3ik13287 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 04:03:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e95I3bt13283 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 04:03:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id OAA02154 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 14:03:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA19301 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 14:03:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 14:03:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200010051803.OAA19301@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] line length X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Reformatting replies to avoid line overflow is too time-consuming. > Sometimes I extend mine to 80 to accommodate the messages of others, > and then forget to reset for my own. Do we have a standard for this on > BLML, David S.? 70? 68? I'm baaaack..... The Usenet standard (which doesn't strictly apply to a mailing list but is still good practice) is a _maximum_ of 72 characters for _original_ material. That leaves 8 characters for quote markings (>) in followups while not exceeding 80 characters, which is the width of many common terminals (anyone else remember those?) and windows. Using fewer characters is fine, but very narrow lines may make the length longer than easily fits in a window. I'd say anywhere between 50 and 72 is good. If multiple quoting and requoting will make line length exceed 80 characters, it's probably best just to delete some of the excess quote marks. Three or four levels of quoting are almost always enough. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 6 05:12:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e95JB1913342 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 05:11:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e95JAst13334 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 05:10:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA09478; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 12:10:49 -0700 Message-Id: <200010051910.MAA09478@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] line length In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 05 Oct 2000 14:03:34 PDT." <200010051803.OAA19301@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 12:10:48 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > Reformatting replies to avoid line overflow is too time-consuming. > > Sometimes I extend mine to 80 to accommodate the messages of others, > > and then forget to reset for my own. Do we have a standard for this on > > BLML, David S.? 70? 68? > > I'm baaaack..... > > The Usenet standard (which doesn't strictly apply to a mailing list but > is still good practice) is a _maximum_ of 72 characters for _original_ > material. After reading Marv's message, I checked the last several messages I could find from David Grabiner, and he does appear to be using a 72-character line (except in his .sig, where one line has 73). (Mine is set at 70, by the way. I didn't know that until I checked it just now.) Actually, I was surprised that David would be the subject of this type of complaint, since his posts never cause a problem, while some others seem to have a line limit of 3672 characters or some such. Their paragraphs show up as one big long line, at least to my newsreader. By the way, in discussions like this, people need to be aware not only that not everybody uses the same reader to handle mail, but sometimes people use something that's not even close. I'm not using a Windows system, for example. I'm on a Unix workstation, and I read my mail through Gnu EMACS, a text editor that's really good for writing programs but also has a mail system built into it. Sometimes, some of these discussions about e-mail stuff are a bit over my head, since I'm using a system which probably looks not much like what everybody else is using. > If multiple quoting and requoting will make line length exceed 80 > characters, it's probably best just to delete some of the excess quote > marks. Three or four levels of quoting are almost always enough. Another alternative, if you *really* need to quote a longer discourse and are willing to do some editing, is to "flatten" it to put everything at the same level. So a discussion that looks like: > > > > > > > > > You're a moron. > > > > > > > > No, you're a moron. > > > > > > > No, you're an even bigger moron. > > > > > > You're both morons. > > > > > Who asked you, you moron? > > > > This discussion is getting off-topic. > > > No it isn't, you moron. > > Who are you calling a moron? > You're all morons, now can we please get back to discussing > bridge? could be edited to look like: Harry said: > You're a moron. and then Charlie responded: > No, you're a moron. and Harry rebid: > No, you're an even bigger moron. whereupon George butted in: > You're both morons. etc. You get the idea. Occasionally I find it useful to do something like this, to make it easier to keep track of who said what. -- 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 Oct 6 08:30:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e95MTpu13477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 08:29:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e95MTjt13473 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 08:29:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.4.107]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20001005222940.VHTR16640.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 23:29:40 +0100 Message-ID: <001201c02f1b$f9b6c0a0$6b04ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne.jones1" To: "BLML" References: <02a401c02efd$b611d740$45e236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] When To Call The Director? Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 23:31:15 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 7:39 PM Subject: [BLML] When To Call The Director? > I have a procedural question about the Director's Ruling (below). > > Appeal No.18 > ------------------- > > Board 27 > None vul. Dealer South > > NORTH > A 6 > A K 5 > A K J 10 6 5 3 > 6 > WEST EAST > 10 8 5 4 Q > 10 6 4 Q J 8 3 > 2 Q 9 8 7 > A K 9 7 3 Q 8 4 2 > SOUTH > K J 9 7 3 2 > 9 7 2 > 4 > J 10 5 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > - - - 2D(1) > Pass 3D (2) Pass 3S(3) > Pass 4C Pass 5C > Pass 5D All Pass > > (1) Multi > (2) GF (or nearly) with diamonds > (3) Weak 2 in spades, without diamond support > Contract: Five diamonds, played by South > > Lead: King of Clubs > > Result: 11 tricks, NS +400 > > TD’s statement of Facts: The Director was called after the > board had been played and scored, when West complained > that he had not been told that four clubs showed shortness. > If he's concerned Yes. But do tell me, am I missing something here, could he have found a a) different b) better lead if he had known? A Spade lead will set this contract, but I do not believe that the knowlege of short clubs in dummy will make you lead a Spade. > > The Director: The director, who was sitting at the table to > check on the time problems, found that West should have > called as soon as the dummy became visible, and concluded > that there was no damage. > I would agree. > > PG: My question is: should West have called the Director as > soon as dummy appeared? Or at the end of the hand? Is one > procedure preferable to the other? > It is preferable to call him immediately. > > I suppose my question could be rephrased as: does the sight > of dummy equal "attention being drawn to an irregularity"? > Yes. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 6 08:50:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e95MoYv13504 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 08:50:35 +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.a2000.nl (deviet-f.a2000.nl [62.108.1.240] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e95MoOt13500 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 08:50:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 3.16 #2) id 13hJqD-00072b-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 06 Oct 2000 00:50:17 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20001006005247.00fc3470@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 00:52:47 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: [BLML] When To Call The Director? In-Reply-To: <02a401c02efd$b611d740$45e236cb@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 04:39 AM 10/6/2000 +1000, you wrote: >I have a procedural question about the Director's Ruling (below). > >Appeal No.18 >------------------- > >Board 27 >None vul. Dealer South > > NORTH > A 6 > A K 5 > A K J 10 6 5 3 > 6 >WEST EAST >10 8 5 4 Q >10 6 4 Q J 8 3 >2 Q 9 8 7 >A K 9 7 3 Q 8 4 2 > SOUTH > K J 9 7 3 2 > 9 7 2 > 4 > J 10 5 > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >- - - 2D(1) >Pass 3D (2) Pass 3S(3) >Pass 4C Pass 5C >Pass 5D All Pass > >(1) Multi >(2) GF (or nearly) with diamonds >(3) Weak 2 in spades, without diamond support >Contract: Five diamonds, played by South > >Lead: King of Clubs > >Result: 11 tricks, NS +400 > >TD’s statement of Facts: The Director was called after the >board had been played and scored, when West complained >that he had not been told that four clubs showed shortness. > >The Director: The director, who was sitting at the table to >check on the time problems, found that West should have >called as soon as the dummy became visible, and concluded >that there was no damage. > >PG: My question is: should West have called the Director as >soon as dummy appeared? Or at the end of the hand? Is one >procedure preferable to the other? > i think is is always best to call the TD as soon as you see this type of irregularity. I dont know what the intention of the 5c bid was, and if a 5c reply sould be alerted (not in holland). in the old days we had the reservation of yor rights, but that doent exsist anymore in the new rules as far as i know. regards, anton >I suppose my question could be rephrased as: does the sight >of dummy equal "attention being drawn to an irregularity"? > >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/ > 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 Fri Oct 6 11:29:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e961QsC13626 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 11:26:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e961Qlt13622 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 11:26:48 +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 13hMHX-0004Xf-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 01:26:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 23:50:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Commission Notes on ACBL website References: <002a01c02d2a$d5b59f20$874c5c18@midsouth.rr.com> <00100419293101.00177@psa836> <06ac01c02ef0$dfbce060$189c1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <06ac01c02ef0$dfbce060$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: >David Grabiner wrote: >> >> The interpretations which come from these meetings need to be >> disseminated more widely. For example, I raised a case >> to some discussion on BLML and which I discovered had been answered >> in these minutes; nobody mentioned that the case was settled. > >What was the general opinion on BLML? I seem to remember some comments >that were contrary to the ACBLLC interpretation quoted below. >> >> The situation: South claimed three of the last four tricks. West >> found a play by East which, combined with a normal misplay by >> declarer which was consistent with the claim, would lead to two >> tricks for declarer on the actual layout, but which could cost a >> trick on a different layout. Should the defense get the trick >> even though East would not have found the play at the table? >> Should the defense get the >> trick if the play by East would be irrational without >> double-dummy play (risking throwing away the setting trick)? >> >> The March 21, 1998 minutes contain the statement: >> "When a claim occurs, both opponents (including dummy in the case of >> a defender's claim) have the right to inspect their opponent's cards >> and confer before they acquiesce. If the non-claiming side can show >a >> line of play, consistent with the claim statement, that produces >more >> tricks for their side, the director should award them those tricks." I do not agree with this. It sounds good, but if the line of play is illogical or stupid then it should not apply. The trouble with statements like this one is that people take them literally at face value. Competent TDs do not need this sort of statement, and it is poison in the hands of incompetent ones. Claim: AKx Qxx "I play three rounds of clubs." A sensible TD or AC assumes that declarer will manage this and gives him three club tricks. According to the stated rule the defence can point out that if the CA and CQ are both played on the first trick they will get the third. That is "a line of play, consistent with the claim statement, that produces more tricks for their side". So it is a flawed statement, and should be re-considered. >> This answers both questions. The table director did not have access >> to this guideline, but happened to rule correctly that the defenders >> get the trick (it was the first case). Not having read the minutes, >I >> would have gotten the second case wrong, assuming that the defenders >are >> also barred from making irrational plays for claim adjudication. >> >Note that this excellent clarification goes against the "equity" >philosophy presently being touted. L12C3 enthusiasts would no doubt >want to calculate the probability that the defenders would find the >line of play that invalidates the claim, and adjust accordingly. If >someone wants to defend that approach, I'm sure Adam W. will have >something to say. L12C3 has no application in claims, which are not assigned scores. >There are going to be some interesting threads coming out of the >ACBLLC's published minutes. We should have some fun! > >David G. and others: Could you reduce your line length please? >Reformatting replies to avoid line overflow is too time-consuming. >Sometimes I extend mine to 80 to accommodate the messages of others, >and then forget to reset for my own. Do we have a standard for this on >BLML, David S.? 70? 68? Note how Grattan does such a good job in this >regard. His line length must be set at 60 or so. My ISP recommends 72 characters. -- 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 Oct 6 11:29:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e961S1C13633 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 11:28:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e961Rtt13629 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 11:27:56 +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 ; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 18:28:11 -0700 Message-ID: <070001c02f34$39bd8360$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200010051803.OAA19301@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] line length Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 18:14:51 -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 Steve Willner wrote: > > Using fewer characters is fine, but very narrow lines may make the > length longer than easily fits in a window. I'd say anywhere between > 50 and 72 is good. > I'm setting mine at 60 for original material, and 70 when replying to others. If lines overflow, not my fault. Hope I remember to reset as appropriate. 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 Fri Oct 6 12:33:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e962Wu913696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 12:32:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f91.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e962Wpt13691 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 12:32:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 19:32:43 -0700 Received: from 134.134.248.29 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 06 Oct 2000 02:32:43 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.29] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Definitions: Convention Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 19:32:43 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Oct 2000 02:32:43.0528 (UTC) FILETIME=[B490E880:01C02F3D] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Again. The laws define a convention as "a call that ... conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or the last denomin- ation named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there...." Since the phrase is "convey a meaning other than," there is no requirement that the call in question actually convey one of those three meanings, or any meaning at all. Does a call have to show one of those three meanings in order to not be a convention? Examples of meaningless calls: 3C after Lebensohl 2NT Any completion of a transfer 1NT first seat all the time A forced psych (for the tie-in) In addition, overall strength of the hand is excluded from the list of meanings other than. Calls that only show strength: Strong 2C opening double showing bust in the auction 2C (strong)- any interference - X NT bids that do not promise any distribution Fert Salem doubles - shows 12+ hcp, says nothing about distribution -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 Oct 6 12:54:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e962sKM13724 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 12:54:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e962sFt13720 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 12:54:16 +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 NAA02206 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 13:49:22 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 06 Oct 2000 13:50:06 +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 2000100613470040:22891 ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 13:47:00 +1000 Received: by immcbrn1.immi.gov.au(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.3 (733.2 10-16-1998)) id 4A256970.00150EBD ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 13:50:00 +1000 X-Lotus-FromDomain: IMMI To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-ID: <4A256970.00150DA5.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 13:51:03 +1000 Subject: Re: [BLML] The Masochism Tango Mime-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 06/10/2000 01:47:00 PM, Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 06/10/2000 01:47:00 PM, Serialize complete at 06/10/2000 01:47:00 PM Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk An old Bridge World editorial related a masochism tango story with a twist. In an ACBL national pairs championship, Pair A committed a trivial, non-damaging revoke against Pair B. Pair B did not want to win the event due to two unearned tricks on a mechanical error, so they masochistically refused to summon the TD. The sado-masochistic conclusion to the tale was that the championship was won by Pair A, just ahead of Pair C. Had the TD been summoned to the A-B table, Pair C would have scored first place. Pair C were justifiably furious, since whenever they infracted, their opponents had had no hesitation in calling for the TD. Edgar Kaplan asserted that tournament bridge would cease to be a meaningful competition, unless contestants acted as best as they could to win. A subsequent letter to Bridge World satirised Kaplan's position by postulating this hypothetical: *You notice an opponent in a team-of-four match choking on his food. If he dies, you win the match by default.* In his reply to the above scenario, Kaplan noted that while the Bridge Laws were silent on whether to let an opponent choke to death, he still deprecated such an action. Question 1: Where do you draw the line between *masochism* and *sportmanship*? Question 2: Where do you draw the line between *playing to win within the letter of the law* and *inactive ethics*? 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 Oct 6 15:06:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e96563K13824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 15:06:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9655ut13820 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 15:05:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-002kslawrP222.dialsprint.net [158.252.181.238]) by avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3-EL_1_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA21216 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 22:05:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <200010060005270740.000D199A@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.10.03.02 (3) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 00:05:27 -0500 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions: Convention Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Examples of meaningless calls: >3C after Lebensohl 2NT >Any completion of a transfer >1NT first seat all the time >A forced psych (for the tie-in) Strictly speaking, I suspect these are not conventions, as you've pointed out. >In addition, overall strength of the hand is excluded from the list of >meanings other than. I'm not as sure about that. Overall strength IMHO is "other than strength there (in the suit named)". Best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 6 15:23:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e965N0D13848 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 15:23:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e965Mrt13844 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 15:22:55 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id E718848A6C; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 01:22:49 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <02a401c02efd$b611d740$45e236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> References: <02a401c02efd$b611d740$45e236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 01:22:36 -0400 To: "Peter Gill" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] When To Call The Director? 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 4:39 AM +1000 10/6/00, Peter Gill wrote: >I have a procedural question about the Director's Ruling (below). ... >The Director: The director, who was sitting at the table to >check on the time problems, found that West should have >called as soon as the dummy became visible, and concluded >that there was no damage. ... >PG: My question is: should West have called the Director as >soon as dummy appeared? Or at the end of the hand? Is one >procedure preferable to the other? I suppose it's preferable to call sooner rather than later, but surely it should make no difference here. What would the director do if he were called? He'd say "please continue, and call me back at the end of the hand if you think you've been damaged." He might also, though it's a matter of some controversy, ask West what he'd have led had he been properly informed. There are two problems with that. First, the director will have to stop to determine just what the NS agreement is. Second, West can hardly give a useful answer when he's already seen dummy. Having seen dummy he knows he should have led a spade. What we really want to know is what he'd have led had he been properly informed and not seen the dummy. If NS committed no infraction then we already know that. If they committed an infraction it has prevented us from ever knowing with certainty. If the writeup is accurate and the directors ruled that there was no damage only because the call was not timely then I think they made a serious error. I missed this case earlier because I consider the final decision too close to call. I didn't notice that the directors had given what seems to me a ruling with no basis in law. The only law quoted is 40C: "If the Director decides that a side has been damaged through its opponents' failure to explain the full meaning of a call or play, he may award an adjusted score." As a matter of policy, I don't think that players should be required to call the director upon the sight of dummy, especially since they know there is literally nothing the director can do except have them play on. Such a requirement encourages players to think about the laws when they should be planning their play or defence. It would seem to encourage the much disparaged "bridge lawyering." 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 Fri Oct 6 15:29:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e965TCv13863 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 15:29:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e965T6t13859 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 15:29:07 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id B367748870; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 01:29:03 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001201c02f1b$f9b6c0a0$6b04ff3e@vnmvhhid> References: <02a401c02efd$b611d740$45e236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <001201c02f1b$f9b6c0a0$6b04ff3e@vnmvhhid> Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 01:28:57 -0400 To: "anne.jones1" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] When To Call The Director? 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 11:31 PM +0100 10/5/00, anne.jones1 wrote: >But do tell me, am I missing something here, could he >have found a a) different b) better lead if he had known? >A Spade lead will set this contract, but I do not believe that the knowlege >of short clubs in dummy will make you lead a Spade. West made that case to the committee in the original appeal. They did not need to consider his argument since they ruled MB rather than ME. See http://home.worldcom.ch/fsb/maastrict.htm for details. I expect Peter did not mention it because the aspect of the case he was interested in was the timing of the director call. I must say that I find the attempt to address each thread to a specific issue commendable. I wish I were better at it myself! 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 Oct 6 15:59:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e965x5913888 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 15:59:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e965x0t13884 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 15:59:00 +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 QAA26380 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 16:54:06 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 06 Oct 2000 16:54:50 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions: Convention To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 16:55:52 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 06/10/2000 04:51:45 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk My understanding is that the WBF applies the Aristotelian Law of the Excluded Middle in its definition of calls, stating that they are either: a) conventional; or, b) natural (defined as *not* conventional). My view of Todd Zimnoch's examples of meaningless calls: [snip] >Examples of meaningless calls: >3C after Lebensohl 2NT Merely because your system *requires* you to bid 3C after 2NT may make 3C *meaningless*, but it is still a conventional call. >Any completion of a transfer This is a close decision. Bidding a suit pard has promised at least 5 cards in is arguably natural. On the other hand, completion may be made on fewer than three cards, and the final contract may be in NT or a different suit. Therefore, it could be argued that completion is conventional. (Completion of a transfer has a *negative meaning* if super-accepts are systemically available.) >1NT first seat all the time Illegal under L74B1. Therefore, it is irrelevant whether such a 1NT call is meaningless, natural or conventional. >A forced psych (for the tie-in) According to the definition of Psychic Call, it is a *misstatement*. Therefore, a forced call cannot be psychic. [snip] 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 Oct 6 16:24:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e966NvR13916 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 16:23:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e966Nqt13912 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 16:23:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.104.229]) by mta6-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20001006062723.DGDP2541344.mta6-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 19:27:23 +1300 Message-ID: <001501c02f5d$e150b240$e56860cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions: Convention Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 19:22:58 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 > >Examples of meaningless calls: > > >3C after Lebensohl 2NT > > Merely because your system *requires* you to > bid 3C after 2NT may make 3C *meaningless*, > but it is still a conventional call. > > >Any completion of a transfer > > This is a close decision. Bidding a suit > pard has promised at least 5 cards in is > arguably natural. On the other hand, > completion may be made on fewer than three > cards, and the final contract may be in NT > or a different suit. I don't see that the final contract whatever it will be has any bearing here. >Therefore, it could be > argued that completion is conventional. > > (Completion of a transfer has a *negative > meaning* if super-accepts are systemically > available.) > > >1NT first seat all the time > > Illegal under L74B1. This had flown past me. Explain please? Why is this "insufficient attention"? That is 74B1 isn't it? >Therefore, it is > irrelevant whether such a 1NT call is > meaningless, natural or conventional. > 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 Fri Oct 6 16:30:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e966UWs13931 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 16:30:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from andira.wanadoo.fr (smtp-abo-3.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.152]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e966UQt13927 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 16:30:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from beauvillain (193.250.155.220) by andira.wanadoo.fr; 6 Oct 2000 08:30:21 +0200 Message-ID: <006601c02f5d$f3587ae0$dc9bfac1@beauvillain> From: "olivier beauvillain" To: "Liste Arbitrage" References: <02a401c02efd$b611d740$45e236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] When To Call The Director? Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 08:23:32 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > I have a procedural question about the Director's Ruling (below). > > Appeal No.18 > ------------------- > > Board 27 > None vul. Dealer South > > NORTH > A 6 > A K 5 > A K J 10 6 5 3 > 6 > WEST EAST > 10 8 5 4 Q > 10 6 4 Q J 8 3 > 2 Q 9 8 7 > A K 9 7 3 Q 8 4 2 > SOUTH > K J 9 7 3 2 > 9 7 2 > 4 > J 10 5 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > - - - 2D(1) > Pass 3D (2) Pass 3S(3) > Pass 4C Pass 5C > Pass 5D All Pass > > (1) Multi > (2) GF (or nearly) with diamonds > (3) Weak 2 in spades, without diamond support > Contract: Five diamonds, played by South > > Lead: King of Clubs > > Result: 11 tricks, NS +400 > > TD's statement of Facts: The Director was called after the > board had been played and scored, when West complained > that he had not been told that four clubs showed shortness. > > The Director: The director, who was sitting at the table to > check on the time problems, found that West should have > called as soon as the dummy became visible, and concluded > that there was no damage. Where did he found that? Did he check if it's a MB or a MI? In firrst case,no damage, in second, could be! > > PG: My question is: should West have called the Director as > soon as dummy appeared? Or at the end of the hand? Is one > procedure preferable to the other? No, because they are defending, so If West calls, this is an UI for his partner. His partner is still "live" in the board so anything he explains to TD is MI to partner! Anyway, TD will tell him to play first and call him again after play If necessary. He can call till 10 minutes after the end of the session to have the TD. Sometimes, with screens, you know you have been misinformed only when you speak with partner after the end of session. > > I suppose my question could be rephrased as: does the sight > of dummy equal "attention being drawn to an irregularity"? > > Peter Gill > Australia. > Kenavo A+OB Tout sur le bridge en Bretagne . et ailleurs sur www.bretagnebridgecomite.com > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 6 16:39:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e966dET13946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 16:39:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e966d8t13942 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 16:39:08 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id HAA20640 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 07:38:59 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 07:38 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] System crash 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: David Stevenson wrote: > >The classic example is 1NT-2NT!-3C, where the 2NT bidder had a > Why? 3C is a perfectly normal bid showing a minimum with a long > club suit, expecting partner to pass unless he has a club fit. Normal is stretching it more than a little. I haven't seen this sequence in ten years of regular rubber bridge - a milieu where a plain 1N-2N is pretty common. 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 Oct 6 17:29:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e967Su214001 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 17:28:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e967Snt13996 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 17:28:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.212] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13hRvt-000A87-00; Fri, 06 Oct 2000 08:28:42 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01c02f67$3e13dd00$d45608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Wayne Burrows" , References: <001501c02f5d$e150b240$e56860cb@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions: Convention Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 08:08:20 +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 " The best direction is that which is least visible" - Martin Ritt ----- Original Message ----- From: Wayne Burrows To: Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 7:22 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions: Convention > > >Examples of meaningless calls: > ------------------- \x/ ----------------- > > > >1NT first seat all the time > > > > Illegal under L74B1. > +=+ I would say subject to regulation under 40D because it may be made on a K less than an average hand. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 6 17:29:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e967So113997 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 17:28:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e967Sht13991 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 17:28:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.212] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13hRvs-000A87-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 06 Oct 2000 08:28:40 +0100 Message-ID: <000a01c02f67$3d320880$d45608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions: Convention Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 08:04:24 +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 " The best direction is that which is least visible" - Martin Ritt ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 7:55 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions: Convention > ----------------------- \x/ -------------------- > [snip] > > >Examples of meaningless calls: > > >3C after Lebensohl 2NT > > Merely because your system *requires* you to > bid 3C after 2NT may make 3C *meaningless*, > but it is still a conventional call. > -------------- \x/ ----------------- > > According to the definition of Psychic Call, it > is a *misstatement*. Therefore, a forced call > cannot be psychic. > +=+ I think I have lost my way in all of this. The question whether a call is not conventional is determined by the meaning it conveys. If it conveys no meaning it is by definition conventional. A forced response says nothing, does not even express a 'willingness' to play there; willingness is a positive state of mind.. ~ 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 Oct 6 17:31:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e967VbS14019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 17:31:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e967VVt14015 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 17:31:32 +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, 6 Oct 2000 00:31:47 -0700 Message-ID: <070d01c02f66$ffdcbd40$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <002a01c02d2a$d5b59f20$874c5c18@midsouth.rr.com> <00100419293101.00177@psa836> <06ac01c02ef0$dfbce060$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Commission Notes on ACBL website Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 00:21:57 -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 David Stevenson wrote: >David Grabiner wrote; > >> > >> The March 21, 1998 minutes contain the statement: > >> "When a claim occurs, both opponents (including dummy in the case of > >> a defender's claim) have the right to inspect their opponent's cards > >> and confer before they acquiesce. If the non-claiming side can show > > a line of play, consistent with the claim statement, that produces > > more > >> tricks for their side, the director should award them those tricks." > > I do not agree with this. It sounds good, but if the line of play is > illogical or stupid then it should not apply. > > The trouble with statements like this one is that people take them > literally at face value. Competent TDs do not need this sort of > statement, and it is poison in the hands of incompetent ones. > > Claim: AKx > > Qxx > > "I play three rounds of clubs." > > A sensible TD or AC assumes that declarer will manage this and gives > him three club tricks. According to the stated rule the defence can > point out that if the CA and CQ are both played on the first trick they > will get the third. That is "a line of play, consistent with the claim > statement, that produces more tricks for their side". Well, the ACBLLC is not saying declarer has to do something irrational, which would contradict the L70D's footnote. All they are saying, I believe, is that opponents must be assumed able to follow a line of play that they can show would invalidate the claim, even if it looks a little double-dummy, and even if it would require some careless or inferior (but not irrational) play by the claimer. Of course the claimer's statement, if any, takes precedence. Happened at my table once, with me as dummy. As partner cashed the last diamond in dummy, coming down to AQ and loser in the majors, LHO claimed two tricks, showing his Kx over the AQ and two winners in the other suit. My partner acquiesced, but I contested the claim, seeing that LHO would be strip-squeezed on the last diamond. Would my inexperienced partner have executed the endplay? Doubtful, but perhaps the sight of a high discard on the last diamond by the squeezee would have led her to do so. We'll never know. The equity enthusiasts would probably want to calculate the probability that partner would have gone right and give us a percentage of the extra overtrick. In our case, the TD ruled the claim was valid, the AC upheld him, and Memphis overturned the AC. > > So it is a flawed statement, and should be re-considered. I thought it was just making plain to everyone what the Laws obviously intended. > > >Note that this excellent clarification goes against the "equity" > >philosophy presently being touted. L12C3 enthusiasts would no doubt > >want to calculate the probability that the defenders would find the > >line of play that invalidates the claim, and adjust accordingly. If > >someone wants to defend that approach, I'm sure Adam W. will have > >something to say. > > L12C3 has no application in claims, which are not assigned scores. It's an analogy, David. I did not mean to cite L12C3 in regard to a claim. However, I would bet that an equity enthusiast would find justification for ruling a la L12C3 by citing L70A: ..."the Director adjudicates the board as equitably as possible to both sides...," ignoring the rest of the sentence: "but any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer." 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 Oct 6 17:39:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e967dDq14032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 17:39:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e967d7t14028 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 17:39:08 +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, 6 Oct 2000 00:39:23 -0700 Message-ID: <071e01c02f68$0f228a40$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions: Convention Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 00:30:17 -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: "Todd Zimnoch" > Again. > > The laws define a convention as "a call that ... conveys a meaning other > than willingness to play in the denomination named (or the last denomin- > ation named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) > there...." Since the phrase is "convey a meaning other than," there is > no requirement that the call in question actually convey one of those > three meanings, or any meaning at all. Does a call have to show one of > those three meanings in order to not be a convention? > Of course. Read it right: ...conveys a meaning other than: 1. willingness to play in the denomination... 2. high card strength there 3. three or more cards there None of those? It's a convention. 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 Fri Oct 6 18:10:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e968ATx14064 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 18:10:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e968APt14060 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 18:10:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.104.229]) by mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20001006081238.CWNH2975909.mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop>; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 21:12:38 +1300 Message-ID: <050501c02f6c$c2db4fa0$e56860cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "bridge-laws" References: <000a01c02f67$3d320880$d45608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions: Convention Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 21:09:30 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > +=+ I think I have lost my way in all > of this. The question whether a call > is not conventional is determined > by the meaning it conveys. If it > conveys no meaning it is by definition > conventional. I can't follow the logic here. What is the logical step that belongs between the previous two sentances. >A forced response says > nothing, does not even express a > 'willingness' to play there; willingness > is a positive state of mind.. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Wayne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 6 18:14:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e968EpY14081 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 18:14:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e968Elt14077 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 18:14:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.104.229]) by mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20001006081701.CXAI2975909.mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop>; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 21:17:01 +1300 Message-ID: <050c01c02f6d$5f8275e0$e56860cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Marvin L. French" , References: <071e01c02f68$0f228a40$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions: Convention Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 21:13:52 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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: "Marvin L. French" To: Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 8:30 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions: Convention > > From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > > Again. > > > > The laws define a convention as "a call that ... conveys a meaning > other > > than willingness to play in the denomination named (or the last > denomin- > > ation named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) > > there...." Since the phrase is "convey a meaning other than," there > is > > no requirement that the call in question actually convey one of those > > three meanings, or any meaning at all. Does a call have to show one > of > > those three meanings in order to not be a convention? > > > Of course. > > Read it right: > > ...conveys a meaning other than: > > 1. willingness to play in the denomination... > 2. high card strength there > 3. three or more cards there > > None of those? It's a convention. > I don't follow this logic either. I think Todd is saying that the definition says that a convention must (my emphasis) convey a meaning other than one of those listed. If it does not convey any meaning then it fails the definition's test of convention. As I see it the moot point is "Can 'no meaning' be a meaning other than those listed?" 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 Fri Oct 6 20:16:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e96AEm814155 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 20:14:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e96AEft14151 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 20:14:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.0.ap (resu)) id MAA21584; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 12:14:18 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id MAA06752; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 12:14:33 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001006122444.0089dab0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 12:24:44 +0200 To: richard.hills@immi.gov.au, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] The Masochism Tango In-Reply-To: <4A256970.00150DA5.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> 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 e96AEit14152 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 13:51 6/10/00 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >Pair C were justifiably furious, since whenever they >infracted, their opponents had had no hesitation in >calling for the TD. AG : tell me, how did they know what happened at the other table ? After all, the TD didn't know, pair A could hardly be proud of it, a fortiori pair B. >*You notice an opponent in a team-of-four match >choking on his food. If he dies, you win the match >by default.* >In his reply to the above scenario, Kaplan noted >that while the Bridge Laws were silent on whether to >let an opponent choke to death, he still deprecated >such an action. AG : I envision a possible snag : if you slap the opponent vigorously, or if you perform the whats-his-name maneuver, it is a virtual certainty that he will spill his cards. This would create such a mess, and another headache to the TD ... O ½ K >Question 1: Where do you draw the line between >*masochism* and *sportmanship*? AG : if you think the opponents will consider you as a nice guy, that's sportmanship. If only you would realize what happened and see how nice you were, that's masochism. 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 Oct 6 21:28:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e96BRhj14206 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 21:27:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e96BRat14201 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 21:27:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-50.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.50]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA25371 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 13:27:31 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39DDA74A.D7DE16E3@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 12:19:54 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] When To Call The Director? References: <02a401c02efd$b611d740$45e236cb@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: > > I have a procedural question about the Director's Ruling (below). > > > PG: My question is: should West have called the Director as > soon as dummy appeared? Or at the end of the hand? Is one > procedure preferable to the other? > > I suppose my question could be rephrased as: does the sight > of dummy equal "attention being drawn to an irregularity"? > I don't believe the director ruled this way because he had not been "called", but rather because the opening leader did not say anything at the sight of the dummy. From which he concluded there had been no real damage. I don't believe one should necessarily call the TD at this stage, nor should it lose any rights. But this player did nothing, not even ask for a repeat of the explanations of the bidding. -- 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 Oct 6 22:22:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e96CMGr14300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 22:22:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e96CM5t14296 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 22:22:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.0.ap (resu)) id OAA27490; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 14:21:29 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id OAA02094; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 14:21:43 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001006143153.008a87d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 14:31:53 +0200 To: "Peter Gill" , "BLML" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] When To Call The Director? In-Reply-To: <02a401c02efd$b611d740$45e236cb@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 04:39 6/10/00 +1000, Peter Gill wrote: >I have a procedural question about the Director's Ruling (below). >I suppose my question could be rephrased as: does the sight >of dummy equal "attention being drawn to an irregularity"? AG : it could be possible that jurisprudency has changed, but here is what I leraned in elementary TD courses : 1) when tne NOS calls at a later stage, while it was quite feasible to call earlier (ie all elements were in the hands of the caller long before), there is a mild presumption that the NOS is trying to 'correct a bad result'. 2) any harmful effect that appeared between the 'possible calling moment' and the 'effective calling moment' could be discarded (but isn't necessarily discarded) as damage that isn't linked to the offence. 3) if, however, the harm was aready done before the 'possible calling moment', then the damage is still considered to be linked, so that all adjustments might be made. 4) don't apply item #2 too harshly when dealing with non-expert players. regards, A. >Peter Gill >Australia. > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 6 22:35:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e96CYZM14349 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 22:34:35 +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-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 e96CYTt14344 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 22:34:29 +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 e96CYLB38438 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 08:34:22 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20001006082624.00b73e30@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, 06 Oct 2000 08:36:20 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] The Masochism Tango In-Reply-To: <4A256970.00150DA5.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:51 PM 10/5/00, richard.hills wrote: >Question 1: Where do you draw the line between >*masochism* and *sportmanship*? It lies between the game of bridge and the "real world". >Question 2: Where do you draw the line between >*playing to win within the letter of the law* and >*inactive ethics*? Imagine you are sitting at a table with three other people having a conversation. If an action would be inappropriate in that situation (e.g. letting one of the others choke to death), it remains inappropriate while you're playing bridge. "Playing to win" applies to situations that arise specifically because you are playing. I should note that I do not take as hard a position as Mr. Kaplan does. I agree that it is unethical to play to lose. But I'm not so sure that it's unethical to make anything other than winning one's highest priority. I have lost the occasional event because I place a higher priority on avoiding a reputation as an "obnoxious bridge lawyer" than I do on winning events, by, for example, not calling the director when I might be technically entitled to redress in an MI situation created by confused opponents. I do not believe I am acting unethically by doing this, but I think Mr. Kaplan would have disagreed. 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 Oct 6 22:35:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e96CYhx14354 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 22:34:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e96CYat14350 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 22:34:37 +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 OAA07501; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 14:32:46 +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 OAA10734; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 14:34:23 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001006144434.008a5240@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 14:44:34 +0200 To: "Todd Zimnoch" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions: Convention In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 19:32 5/10/00 PDT, you wrote: >Again. > >The laws define a convention as "a call that ... conveys a meaning other >than willingness to play in the denomination named (or the last denomin- >ation named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) >there...." Since the phrase is "convey a meaning other than," there is >no requirement that the call in question actually convey one of those >three meanings, or any meaning at all. Does a call have to show one of >those three meanings in order to not be a convention? > >Examples of meaningless calls: >3C after Lebensohl 2NT AG : after 1NT (2x) 2NT, the bid is virtually meaningless, so non-alertable (doesn't carry a specific message - what would you tell the opponents - by the way, you don't have to alert what springs out from bridge logic : if 2NT is 'compelling to bid 3C' it is logical that 3C is non-specific). After 2M - X - p - 2NT, 3C tells more : the doubler doesn't have a huge hand. So I would feel compelled to alert. >Any completion of a transfer AG : not- alertable IMHO. But if there are other bids available, then the completion transmits a message (most probably that you don't have a perfectly fitting hand), so I would alert. >1NT first seat all the time AG : usually regulated. >A forced psych (for the tie-in) AG : I beg your pardon ? Any bid that's forced is systemic, not a psyche ... What am I missing ? >Calls that only show strength: >Strong 2C opening >double showing bust in the auction 2C (strong)- any interference - X >NT bids that do not promise any distribution >Fert >Salem doubles - shows 12+ hcp, says nothing about distribution AG : seems like you went too far on that one. What it means is that unusual strength zones are not enough to make a natural bid shift into the artificial category. eg, the fact that you play 19-20 or 22-24 2NT openings is irrelevant in the alertability. It doesn't mean that bids that artificially show point ranges aren't alertable. You could have added strong club. Except perhaps for the strong 2C opener, I would alert all the others. 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 Oct 6 22:43:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e96ChLA14380 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 22:43:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (guppy.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e96ChBt14376 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 22:43:11 +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 OAA10854; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 14:41:25 +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 OAA16199; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 14:43:01 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001006145313.008a3de0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 14:53:13 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] Definition : convention Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Having erroneously deleted Grattan's message, I will create a new one. Just to say that stating that 'willingness should be a positive state of mind' seems wrong. Say you hold a 0337 yarborough, and pass partner's 1S opening. You are hardly *willing* to play there, are you ? But your pass is non-specific, thus non-alertable. Following Grattan's logic, it would be alertable. Oops ! And I can see at least one case where pass shows specifically 'willingness to play there' and still is alertable : 1C opening - 15-20 HCP without 5-card major, not necessarily long clubs. Now partner, if weak, will usually respond a negative 1D, but might pass if and only if holding less than 5 HCP and club length. This pass is alertable, isn't it ? A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 6 22:48:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e96CmIg14396 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 22:48:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 e96CmBt14392 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 22:48:12 +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 13hWux-000AZB-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 13:48:04 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 11:55:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] System crash 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: >David Stevenson wrote: > >> >The classic example is 1NT-2NT!-3C, where the 2NT bidder had a > >> Why? 3C is a perfectly normal bid showing a minimum with a long >> club suit, expecting partner to pass unless he has a club fit. > >Normal is stretching it more than a little. I haven't seen this >sequence in ten years of regular rubber bridge - a milieu where a >plain 1N-2N is pretty common. But if it came up is that not how your rubber bridge players would take it? Normal does not mean frequent. -- 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 Oct 6 22:55:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e96Cstk14413 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 22:54:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e96Cspt14409 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 22:54:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ka000140 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 22:53:45 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-010-p-223-168.tmns.net.au ([203.54.223.168]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-Ovine-MailRouter V2.9b 13/15582362); 06 Oct 2000 22:53:45 Message-ID: <009401c02f9c$fbdad480$a8df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Squeeze Appeal Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 23:48:50 +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 Marc Smith wrote: >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. By now I guess this appeal would have been resolved. I am wondering what the outcome was, and whether there were any problems caused by the appeal being discussed on BLML before being heard? 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 Oct 6 23:57:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e96Dug114465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 23:56:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e96DuZt14461 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 23:56:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from spock.tcp.co.uk (vt1-83.du.tcp.co.uk [195.80.1.83]) by poseidon.tcp.net.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA04717 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 14:56:29 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20001006145838.00b2d1b0@popmail.tcp.co.uk> X-Sender: spock@popmail.tcp.co.uk X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 14:59:31 +0100 To: "BLML" 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 Marc Smith wrote: >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. By now I guess this appeal would have been resolved. I am wondering what the outcome was, and whether there were any problems caused by the appeal being discussed on BLML before being heard? The referee let the Director's ruling stand. Not really, since the referee is not a member of the group. M -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 7 04:35:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e96IYUL14719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 04:34:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f71.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e96IYPt14715 for ; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 04:34:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 11:34:18 -0700 Received: from 134.134.248.29 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 06 Oct 2000 18:34:18 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.29] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions: Convention Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 11:34:18 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Oct 2000 18:34:18.0175 (UTC) FILETIME=[094164F0:01C02FC4] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Grattan Endicott" >----- Original Message ----- >From: Wayne Burrows > > > >Examples of meaningless calls: > > >------------------- \x/ ----------------- > > > > > >1NT first seat all the time > > > > > > Illegal under L74B1. > > >+=+ I would say subject to regulation >under 40D because it may be made >on a K less than an average hand. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ 2NT first seat all the time. I can't seem to find where it is, but there's a regulation in the ACBL that a player must inspect the face of his cards before making a call. That might imply that one's call must be based on the cards held. It can equally be considered frivolous, but I might say that it's more insulting in competition. It's a tactic that only gains against very weak opponents. But my question was not whether it can be regulated or whether it needs to be alerted, but whether it's a convention. -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 Oct 7 04:56:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e96Iukr14744 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 04:56:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f113.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.113]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e96Iuft14740 for ; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 04:56:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 11:56:33 -0700 Received: from 134.134.248.29 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 06 Oct 2000 18:56:33 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.29] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions: Convention Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 11:56:33 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Oct 2000 18:56:33.0204 (UTC) FILETIME=[24FEA740:01C02FC7] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: alain gottcheiner > >A forced psych (for the tie-in) > >AG : I beg your pardon ? Any bid that's forced is systemic, not a psyche >... What am I missing ? You can be required to bid and have no option that suits your hand. Imagine the following insane agreement: 1C - exactly 8HCP 1D - exactly 9HCP 1H - exactly 10HCP 1S - exactly 11HCP 1NT- exactly 12HCP We always open at the one level and never pass out an auction. How do you describe the bid that will occur in the auction P-P-P-? You are forced to make a 1 level bid and the odds are significant that none of the bids available match your hand. There are subtler examples that are relatively sane. And then there are 'rebid problems.' -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 Oct 7 06:20:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e96KJl414810 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 06:19:48 +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 e96KJft14806 for ; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 06:19:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ives6n.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.112.215]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA11909 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 16:19:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001006161915.013519d8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 16:19:15 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] The Masochism Tango 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 05:46 PM 10/5/2000 +1000, you wrote: > >In the thread *System crash*, David J Grabiner wrote: > >>I would add a clarification: if the call is impossible >>under partnership style, you may assume a misunderstanding. > >>The classic example is 1NT-2NT!-3C, where the 2NT bidder >>had a normal 2NT raise and opener alerted the bid as a >>transfer. The consensus in this case is that you do not >>need to assume partner has suddenly discovered that his >>spades are clubs, or psyched with a long club suit. >>Responder can bid 3NT based on the AI from the auction. > >[snip] > >If David's example auction occurred at my table, this is >what would happen: > >1NT - 2NT (which I think is natural and invitational) - >3C (which I deduce as showing a maximum 1NT opening with >six clubs and a worthless doubleton in a major, offering a >choice of contracts between 3NT and 5C) - 5C. Certainly if this 3C bid has such a meaning in your methods, then 5C is a LA, over which the 3nt bid is demonstrably suggested by the UI and therefore 5C is the legal choice. But your "deduction" that this is the meaning of 3C is not one that would occur to most players. If you were playing behind screens with an unfamiliar partner, or on OKBridge, would this be your deduction? If so, I would think you were more guilty of sadism than of masochism. > >Another example of my masochism occurred in a teams event >many years ago. As dealer, vul against not, I held: > >KJ10x x AJxx xxxx > >I passed, LHO opened a classical weak two in hearts, pard >passed and RHO passed. > >There is only one LA here - a reopening double. Sure there >is a risk of going for a number when RHO is lurking with a >strongish hand which misfits LHO's hearts. But in the long >run many more imps are gained by doubling than by >masochistically passing. I disagree that there is only one LA here: I personally consider a pass to be a LA. I would not be likely to take that path, but would certainly consider it. But if we judge that Pass is actually _not_ an LA, then you are under no legal or ethical obligation to choose it. Period. 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 Oct 7 07:25:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e96LOb214882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 07:24:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e96LOUt14878 for ; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 07:24:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e96EXZS00996 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 14:33:35 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] The Masochism Tango Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 14:30:25 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <4.3.2.7.1.20001006082624.00b73e30@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20001006082624.00b73e30@127.0.0.1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00100614333505.00736@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 06 Oct 2000, you wrote: > I should note that I do not take as hard a position as Mr. Kaplan > does. I agree that it is unethical to play to lose. But I'm not so > sure that it's unethical to make anything other than winning one's > highest priority. Here's an example the other way around. You are declarer and have made a harmless revoke that the defenders did not notice. Is it unethical to call the TD at the end of play and ask to be penalized one trick? Remember that there is no obligation to draw attention to your own revoke, as long as you have not conecealed it. -- 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 Oct 7 08:40:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e96Me5614966 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 08:40:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from server03.gw.total-web.net (qmailr@server03.gw.total-web.net [209.186.12.19]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e96Mdwt14961 for ; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 08:39:59 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 29401 invoked from network); 6 Oct 2000 22:47:12 -0000 Received: from ip-014-202.gw.total-web.net (HELO Bickford1) (209.186.14.202) by server03.gw.total-web.net with SMTP; 6 Oct 2000 22:47:12 -0000 Message-ID: <012501c02fe6$6fc8fb80$ca0ebad1@gw.total.web.net> From: "Bill Bickford" To: "Bridge Laws Forum" Subject: [BLML] Fw: Tourney hand Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 18:40:32 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This was posted to RGB and RGBO. The situation obviously could not arise in FTF bridge. What does this list think of the ruling? Should this type of situation be considered when establishing the laws for on-line bridge? Cheers................./Bill Bickford ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pam" Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge.okbridge,rec.games.bridge Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 5:41 PM Subject: Tourney hand > > Watching the OKB tourney tonight I saw an interesting director > decision... > > EW are playing in 2HX vul vs vul and at trick one declarer inadvertently > clicks on "claim" (claiming 13). The contract is going 2 off on any > normal defence except that if NS play double dummy (they can now of > course see all 4 hands but declarer cannot) they can get another trick > for 3 off. What to do? Call the director (good on them!). > > N called for the director, explained that E had inadvertently misclicked > the claim and asked whether the board should be skipped or whether it > was now OK for them to play double dummy and the director said, without > any thought at all, "sure - carry on" and disappeared. > > The contract duly goes for 800. > > No complaints from EW and everyone behaved impeccably, I just wondered > what you lot thought of the ruling and whether anyone can think of a > "proper" law that covers this. I did have a quick look through but it > doesn't seem to me that any of the laws really fit but it also doesn't > seem like the defenders are now allowed to play double dummy (S had > already asked why the director had been called because even seeing all > the cards saw only 7 tricks for the defence). > > It's not an easy one is it? - declarer hadn't really claimed, just > misclicked and it was a bit like some outside influence (in this case > the software) had exposed all the cards. > > I was surprised that the director didn't even seem to think about the > problem and didn't appear to look at the hands or the playing log but > there are many folks that can think quicker that I :) > > Cheers, > > Pam > > In case anyone is interested in the actual hand, or if it matters, this > is it. The inadvertent claim of all 13 (and exposure to the defence of > declarers and each others hand) was made before a card had been played > from dummy to trick one. > > Pairs Dlr: East > Board 26 S AJ84 Vul: Both > H AJ7 > D 52 > S 5 C K876 S QT976 > H Q96532 H T > D KQ6 D AT43 > C T95 S K32 C Q42 > H K84 > D J987 > C AJ3 > > West North East South > > > Pass Pass > 2H* Dbl Pass Pass > Pass > > Opening lead: C6 Result: Down 3 > Score: 800 Points: 0.00 > > 1 North C6, 2, J, T > 2 South CA, 5, 7, 4 > 3 South C3, 9, K, Q > 4 North S4, 9, K, 5 > 5 South S3, H2, S8, S6 > 6 West D6, 2, A, 7 > 7 East HT, 4, 3, J > 8 North C8, S7, S2, H5 > 9 West HQ, A, D3, H8 > 10 North SJ, Q, D8, DK > 11 East ST, D9, DQ, SA > 12 North H7, D4, HK, H6 > 13 South DJ, H9, D5, DT > > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 7 09:38:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e96NcOx15014 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 09:38:24 +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 e96NcHt15008 for ; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 09:38:18 +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 TAA07102 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 19:38:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA26865 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 19:38:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 19:38:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200010062338.TAA26865@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Fw: Tourney hand X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Bill Bickford" > The situation obviously could not arise in FTF bridge. An exactly analogous situation can certainly arise in FTF bridge. Just suppose declarer accidentally drops his hand face up at trick one. And indeed there are lots of other situations where a purely mechanical accident can ruin one's score. I don't see anything in the Laws that prevents the defenders from using the information gained. While some would consider it unsportsmanlike to take advantage of a line of play that would never be found single dummy, I wouldn't criticize anyone who decided to take full advantage. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 7 09:39:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e96NdqP15033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 09:39:52 +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-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 e96Ndkt15029 for ; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 09:39:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13hh5S-000AoY-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 00:39:35 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 14:50:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Squeeze Appeal References: <009401c02f9c$fbdad480$a8df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <009401c02f9c$fbdad480$a8df36cb@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: >Marc Smith wrote: >>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. > > >By now I guess this appeal would have been resolved. I am >wondering what the outcome was, and whether there were >any problems caused by the appeal being discussed on >BLML before being heard? The EBU L&EC minuutes of 2000-09-27 say: 'The L&E did not think that it was appropriate for appellants to bring cases into the public domain when an appeal was still pending.' I understand the AC upheld the TD [though I have not heard officially]. -- 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 Oct 7 09:47:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e96Njl415053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 09:45:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e96Njft15049 for ; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 09:45:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id TAA07190 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 19:45:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA26938 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 19:45:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 19:45:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200010062345.TAA26938@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Squeeze Appeal X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > The EBU L&EC minuutes of 2000-09-27 say: > > 'The L&E did not think that it was appropriate for appellants to bring > cases into the public domain when an appeal was still pending.' Does this mean we should not discuss appeals (or possible appeals) with friends or advisors? I guess what we need are definitions of "public domain" and "still pending." -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 7 10:27:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e970RDi15109 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 10:27:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e970R4t15101 for ; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 10:27:05 +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, 6 Oct 2000 17:27:20 -0700 Message-ID: <073c01c02ff4$cf636fe0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <071e01c02f68$0f228a40$189c1e18@san.rr.com> <050c01c02f6d$5f8275e0$e56860cb@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions: Convention Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 17:20:57 -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 Wayne Burrows wrote: > Marv wrote: > > From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > > > > Again. > > > > > > The laws define a convention as "a call that ... conveys a meaning > > other > > > than willingness to play in the denomination named (or the last > > denomin- > > > ation named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) > > > there...." Since the phrase is "convey a meaning other than," there > > is > > > no requirement that the call in question actually convey one of those > > > three meanings, or any meaning at all. Does a call have to show one > > of > > > those three meanings in order to not be a convention? > > > > > Of course. > > > > Read it right: > > > > ...conveys a meaning other than: > > > > 1. willingness to play in the denomination... > > 2. high card strength there > > 3. three or more cards there > > > > None of those? It's a convention. > > > I don't follow this logic either. > > I think Todd is saying that the definition says that a convention must (my > emphasis) convey a meaning other than one of those listed. If it does not > convey any meaning then it fails the definition's test of convention. Well, he's wrong. > > As I see it the moot point is "Can 'no meaning' be a meaning other than > those listed?" > Moot indeed, because that is pretty obviouly not what the writer of the definition intended. The meaning of a Law "lies not in the words themselves, but in the mind of the writer," as a wise man once wrote on BLML. If I say, "The color you paint my house must be other than red, white, or blue, then "no color" is not one of the options. 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 Oct 7 10:27:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e970RD215108 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 10:27:13 +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 e970R4t15100 for ; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 10:27:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.129] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13hhpF-000Ahr-00; Sat, 07 Oct 2000 01:26:53 +0100 Message-ID: <000401c02ff5$7bf7bc20$815608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Todd Zimnoch" , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions: Convention Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 01:25:51 +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 " The weak have one weapon: the errors of those who think they are strong." - Georges Bidault ----- Original Message ----- From: Todd Zimnoch To: Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 7:34 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions: Convention > 2NT first seat all the time. > +=+ I think the law of natural selection might dispose of this. +=+ > > I can't seem to find where it is, but there's a regulation in > the ACBL that a player must inspect the face of his cards > before making a call > +=+ Try Law 7B1 +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 7 11:42:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e971g6V15178 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 11:42:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 e971fxt15174 for ; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 11:42:00 +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 13hizq-0008Zm-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 02:41:55 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 01:17:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions: Convention References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch wrote: > I can't seem to find where it is, but there's a regulation in the ACBL >that a player must inspect the face of his cards before making a call. Law 7B1. -- 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 Oct 7 11:48:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e971mnO15193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 11:48:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e971mit15189 for ; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 11:48:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13hj6O-0008mQ-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 02:48:41 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 02:45:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Squeeze Appeal References: <200010062345.TAA26938@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200010062345.TAA26938@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 >> The EBU L&EC minuutes of 2000-09-27 say: >> >> 'The L&E did not think that it was appropriate for appellants to bring >> cases into the public domain when an appeal was still pending.' > >Does this mean we should not discuss appeals (or possible appeals) >with friends or advisors? I guess what we need are definitions of >"public domain" and "still pending." Oh, come off it, Steve, stop trying to sound like ***** and *******: ok, so fill in the blanks yourself. No, you do not need definitions, any more than if I was to say that Quango is an annoying cat, it is not helpful to ask for definitions of "annoying" and "cat". If you do not know what the L&EC means by this I would be *most* surprised. -- 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 Oct 7 16:25:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e976OcI15379 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 16:24:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f22.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e976OWt15375 for ; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 16:24:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 23:24:24 -0700 Received: from 172.129.54.241 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 07 Oct 2000 06:24:24 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.129.54.241] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: mlfrench@writeme.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions: Convention Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 23:24:24 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Oct 2000 06:24:24.0608 (UTC) FILETIME=[3CAB2200:01C03027] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Marvin L. French" > > > Of course. > > > > > > Read it right: > > > > > > ...conveys a meaning other than: > > > > > > 1. willingness to play in the denomination... > > > 2. high card strength there > > > 3. three or more cards there > > > > > > None of those? It's a convention. > > > > > I don't follow this logic either. > > > > I think Todd is saying that the definition says that a convention must >(my > > emphasis) convey a meaning other than one of those listed. If it does >not > > convey any meaning then it fails the definition's test of convention. > >Well, he's wrong. I haven't said which side of the argument I'm on. Strictly speaking the definition does not require that the call carry any meaning. So it fails to convey a meaning "other than..." because it fails to convey any meaning. This came up in a side conversation I was having with someone and I wanted to see where it really was. > > As I see it the moot point is "Can 'no meaning' be a meaning other >than > > those listed?" > > >Moot indeed, because that is pretty obviouly not what the writer of the >definition intended. The meaning of a Law "lies not in the words >themselves, but in the mind of the writer," as a wise man once wrote on >BLML. Which is why I do actually think the interpretation of the definition requires that the bid carry one of those three meanings. >If I say, "The color you paint my house must be other than red, white, >or blue, then "no color" is not one of the options. I assure you that I will not paint your house any color. But if you want, I could subcontract it out. ;) -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 Oct 7 19:16:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e979FWr15485 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 19:15:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e979FOt15481 for ; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 19:15:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-155.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.155]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA00232; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 11:15:18 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39DEE392.B2FC53C4@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 10:49:22 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws , masonjr@bp.com Subject: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I would like to hear your opinions on the following ruling: The players: NS: average players, building a partnership and system E: a visitor from Scotland, his third week in Belgium, though he also spent some months here two years ago W: another average player, it's the second time they play together The board: 19 (EW/S) K 9 8 7 4 6 4 3 K 10 Q 4 J A Q 6 5 2 K 10 5 2 - A 8 6 3 Q 9 7 5 4 2 A J 10 9 7 6 3 10 3 A Q J 9 8 7 J K 8 5 2 W N E S 2Di Dbl 2He 3He pass 4He 4Sp Dbl 5Cl Dbl 5He Dbl all pass Two diamonds was multi, weak in a major or very strong or NT 24-25. West intended the double to show diamonds, but this was not alerted nor explained. North intended to show a willingness to play in either major. This was not alerted. East intended 3He as a cue-bid, but this was also not alerted. West understood 3He to be natural and raised to four. Opposite a weak partner, now obviously with spades, North believed that four hearts would make and 4 spades a cheap sacrifice. Soon the misunderstanding became clear and NS had to run to 5He, down three for -500. There is no convention card for East-West. They have clearly told everything they knew. There is no answer from South as to why he did not double 3He. North states that there is no systemic obligation to double. Your opinions ? -- 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 Oct 7 19:48:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e979lqo15524 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 19:47:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.211.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e979lft15520 for ; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 19:47:46 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 32396 invoked for bounce); 7 Oct 2000 09:47:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.57.205) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 7 Oct 2000 09:47:35 -0000 Message-ID: <023101c03043$e36a23e0$983a1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions: Convention Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 11:48:25 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Todd Zimnoch" wrote: > >From: "Marvin L. French" > > > I think Todd is saying that the > > > definition says that a convention must > > > (my emphasis) convey a meaning other > > > than one of those listed. If it does not > > > convey any meaning then it fails the > > > definition's test of convention. > > > >Well, he's wrong. > > I haven't said which side > of the argument I'm on. Strictly > speaking the definition does not > require that the call carry any meaning. > So it fails to convey a meaning > "other than..." because it fails to > convey any meaning. "0-37 HCP, any distribution" is a meaning, too. Don't get confused by the obvious fact that such a meaning is just useless in constructive bidding. 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 Oct 7 22:28:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e97CRGv15627 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 22:27:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e97CR9t15623 for ; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 22:27:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis55.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.55]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.1999.06.13.00.20) with ESMTP id <0G22006MZ7X2X1@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 14:27:04 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 14:27:01 +0200 From: Richard Bley Subject: [BLML] too late for TD? In-reply-to: <023101c03043$e36a23e0$983a1dc2@rabbit> X-Sender: bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <5.0.0.25.0.20001007142309.00a6e170@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi, just a small case. 2 hours after finish of the round (incl. score made available; L92B) a player complains about his opponents because he used UI. The facts are that this is the case and there was an infraction. Is there any way for the TD to do sth? score correction? (maybe splitted?) penalty points? what else? 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 Sat Oct 7 23:32:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e97DViM15674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 23:31:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e97DVYt15665 for ; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 23:31:35 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id OAA23010 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 14:31:26 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 14:31 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp 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: <39DEE392.B2FC53C4@village.uunet.be> Hi Herman, Who is asking for a ruling and why? I'm afraid the facts you present don't even begin to make any infraction (let alone damage) apparent. 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 Oct 7 23:32:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e97DVia15673 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 23:31:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e97DVYt15664 for ; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 23:31:34 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id OAA23001 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 14:31:25 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 14:31 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] System crash 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: > >> >The classic example is 1NT-2NT!-3C, where the 2NT bidder had a > > > >> Why? 3C is a perfectly normal bid showing a minimum with a long > >> club suit, expecting partner to pass unless he has a club fit. > > > >Normal is stretching it more than a little. I haven't seen this > >sequence in ten years of regular rubber bridge - a milieu where a > >plain 1N-2N is pretty common. > > But if it came up is that not how your rubber bridge players would > take it? Normal does not mean frequent. Probably wouldn't be expected as an absolute minimum (ie 11 count with 5 clubs). More like "partner please bid 3N if you can see any excuse" so even Tx in clubs would be enough of a fit unless the 2N had been on a ten count. I would describe this as a "logical/inferential meaning" rather than a "normal" one - but I guess, to me, normal does imply a degree of frequency. However, if the perpetrator was a visiting American, those of us familiar with US systems would probably assume it was a transfer completion (normally we play without alerts). 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 Oct 8 04:21:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e97IKDZ15931 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 04:20:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e97IK6t15926 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 04:20:07 +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 KAA13437; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 10:19:56 -0800 Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 10:19:56 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: "Marvin L. French" cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions: Convention In-Reply-To: <073c01c02ff4$cf636fe0$189c1e18@san.rr.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, 6 Oct 2000, Marvin L. French wrote: > > > Moot indeed, because that is pretty obviouly not what the writer of the > definition intended. The meaning of a Law "lies not in the words > themselves, but in the mind of the writer," as a wise man once wrote on > BLML. > > If I say, "The color you paint my house must be other than red, white, > or blue, then "no color" is not one of the options. With that much, I agree. Problem is, the definition doesn't read quite that emphatically. Suppose that Big Brother had passed a law in 1984 with this poorly worded text: "Houses painted any colour other than some combination of red, white, and blue are hereby deemed 'unpatriotic' and are subject to regulation should a nation deem it in its best interests to do so." Now we have a nice variety of situations to consider. A house painted green is clearly unpatriotic, and will surely be condemned by the regulators and burned to the ground just as surely as a pair trying to play Multi 2D in the USA. A house painted black will try trotting out an argument about black being not a colour but the absence of colour. They will get laughed at, and there will be a quick, widely accepted interpretation of the law given to make it clear that black paint still counts as paint of the wrong colour. Compare the Lille interpretation of "or in the last denomination named" so that a 2NT response promising support for opener's major was clearly conventional. A house painted in red and blue stripes is patriotic. Is a purple house painted with "a combination of red and blue," or not? A red-and-blue-striped bridge bid is a weak 2H saying "either I have length in hearts, or I am willing to play 2 undoubled hearts despite the fact I am void in them." Disclosable but I don't think conventional, it is after all an offer to play 2H. A purple bridge bid is, say, a bid that shows a partial stopper in a suit; maybe strength (K) or length (10xxx) or maybe something not really strong and not really long but serving the same purpose (Qx). I don't think we have yet had an argument about 'purple bids' on here. And now for the crux of the problem. Suppose a certain Alaskan member of BLML, like a good frontier man, has a rustic wooden house, not painted any colour at all, just weathered spruce and pine. The patriotism police will not find any speck of paint, red, white, blue, purple, or otherwise, to guide them in deciding whether my house needs burnt down. I claim that a house not painted clearly has not run afoul of the regulation as set forth above. Certainly not the letter of the regulation, anyway. Likewise I am happy with the idea that Lebensohl 3C conveys no message at all and therefore does not "convey a message other than". Now, what about the spirit of the regulation? Well, my political leanings are unpatriotic but I want to keep my protests subtle enough I won't get my house burnt down. I also happen to like playing unusual bidding systems in the ACBL without getting myself hit with PPs. Interpreting the laws to mean that almost everything is a convention is popular these days. For that matter there is a proposal (which I oppose) to allow regulation of all agreements, not just conventional ones. ("The government may tell you what colour to paint your house", period, instead of allowing you to choose freely among red, white and blue.) I don't like that. My interpretation of calls that convey no message, except possibly for overall strength, has some strange consequences. Yes, pushed far enough, you can make a case that 1C showing any 16+ HCP "conveys no message except overall strength" unless it asks responder a specific question. I admit a Precision club feels unpatriotic, er, conventional. But if I am forced to choose between these two interpretations-- I would much rather see a few bizarre-sounding agreements put beyond the pale of the regulators, than see a precedent set that moves us toward an absolute right of SOs to regulate bidding agreements. GRB PS: Don't blame Todd for stirring up this one. It came up in a private email conversation we were having earlier this week :) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Oct 8 08:15:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e97MEJI16087 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 08:14:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e97MEDt16083 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 08:14:14 +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, 7 Oct 2000 15:11:43 -0700 Message-ID: <002c01c030ab$c6c64f80$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] ACBLLC minutes Nov 1998 Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 15:10:55 -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 These are the minutes I have been wanting to see for so long. Chip told me at the Vancouver NABC (Spring 1999) that they would be published "soon," but "soon" became 18 months. I knew they had discussed the WBFLC's Lille interpretations, and was very curious as to what was decided. Some interesting excerpts (my #s): #1. Chip Martel reported on the WBF Laws Commission meetings in Lille France. He noted that while decisions of the WBF Laws Commission are subject to the final approval of the Executive, the ACBL Laws Commission is the ultimate authority on Law in the ACBL. As Jeff Rubens wrote in his October BW editorial: "The WBF, WBFLC, ACBL, ACBLLC, and any zones, commissions, suborganizations, or other entities involved in damaging posturing and legalistic territoriality should terminate their current silly game forthwith. Get onto the same page, you people! The rest of us want to play bridge, not to practice alphabet-soup stain removal." The following "consensus opinions" were arrived at after discussing specific items in the WBFLC minutes: #2. The ACBL Laws Commission maintains that whenever an Ave+/Ave- is given, the sum of the matchpoints awarded will be 100% of the matchpoints available on the board. This rule contradicts Lille No.4, which gives the OS 40% or the player's session percentage, whichever is lower. I don't know the reasons for it, as unbalanced awards are perfectly normal, and it doesn't make sense that an OS's adjustment should depend on the performance of the NOS on other boards (when greater than 60%), or that the OS should benefit from a 40% adjustment when their performance on other boards was 35%. #3. For an offending pair, "damage" should be based solely on the score achieved, whereas actions subsequent to the infraction may be relevant for the non-offenders. This must be a contradiction of Lille No. 3 (too long for this typist), but since I don't understand either LC's statement on the subject, I can't give an opinion. #4. In regard to Law 43B2b, the ACBL maintains that the number of tricks awarded shall be determined by what would have occurred had play proceeded normally. The "equity" enthusiasts will love this one. Lille "Sundries" included a reaffirmation that "the reference in Law 43B2b to the penalty in Law 64 means the two-trick penalty." #5. In regard to L25B, the ACBL Laws Commission maintains that the "right" to change one's call is not dependant on the reason for wishing to make a change. Another contradiction of the Lille interpretations, evidently, but someone else will have to explain this one. Evidently the verb "maintains" constitutes an offical ACBL LC interpretation of the Laws. By implication, the undiscussed Lille WBFLC interpretations are acceptable to the ACBLLC. 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 Oct 8 19:22:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e989KT816518 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 19:20:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e989KKt16513 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 19:20:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.22] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13iCcy-0009rg-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 08 Oct 2000 10:20:16 +0100 Message-ID: <000601c03109$2a680260$165408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <002c01c030ab$c6c64f80$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: [BLML] A pragmatic world [was ACBLLC minutes Nov 1998] Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 09:37:45 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott " The weak have one weapon: the errors of those who think they are strong." - Georges Bidault ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2000 11:10 PM Subject: [BLML] ACBLLC minutes Nov 1998 > These are the minutes I have been wanting to see for so long. ------------------ \x/ ----------------- > > As Jeff Rubens wrote in his October BW editorial: "The WBF, WBFLC, ACBL, > ACBLLC, and any zones, commissions, suborganizations, or other entities > involved in damaging posturing and legalistic territoriality should > terminate their current silly game forthwith. Get onto the same page, > you people! The rest of us want to play bridge, not to practice > alphabet-soup stain removal." > +=+ Whilst I understand these feelings I do not think it is achievable in the medium term. The ACBL chooses to be the only one in step in some things and none of us is inclined to go to war about it. We work by discussion, give and take, to get as close together as possible and where we have not found common ground in the past we have created flexibility by introducing zonal options into the laws. The one effect it has is that when ACBL players emerge into the world of international bridge they have to adapt to the laws as they are outside of the ACBL. To now this only affects a minority of players, although amongst them a proportion of the more significant ones. There are some in the current generation who dislike options and would like to have everything in absolute terms; I do not believe we can avoid allowing options in matters where the ACBL will not accept the wider view, and I see it as being for the general good that we should do so. Alternatively, and maybe better, we must so write the laws that areas where we do not share the same approach are put into the powers of regulation - that is more or less where we have arrived 'de facto' anyway and there is no future in intransigence. This is not posturing. It is an exercise in diplomacy and the art of living on one planet where, in bridge, there is no superpower to send in the gunboats. ~ 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 Oct 8 21:33:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e98BWmO16602 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 21:32:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e98BWit16597 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 21:32:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id aa028080 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 21:32:13 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-002-p-213-110.tmns.net.au ([203.54.213.110]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-Hungry-MailRouter V2.9b 13/16097434); 08 Oct 2000 21:32:12 Message-ID: <01fa01c03123$d8dc3360$2ce136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 22:31:57 +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 Herman de Wael wrote: >I would like to hear your opinions on the following ruling: > >The players: >NS: average players, building a partnership and system >E: a visitor from Scotland, his third week in Belgium, >though he also spent some months here two years ago >W: another average player, it's the second time they play >together > >The board: > >19 (EW/S) K 9 8 7 4 > 6 4 3 > K 10 > Q 4 >J A Q 6 5 2 >K 10 5 2 - >A 8 6 3 Q 9 7 5 4 2 >A J 10 9 7 6 3 > 10 3 > A Q J 9 8 7 > J > K 8 5 2 > > W N E S > 2D > Dbl 2H 3H pass > 4H 4S Dbl 5C > Dbl 5H Dbl all pass > >Two diamonds was multi, weak in a major or very strong or NT >24-25. >West intended the double to show diamonds, but this was not >alerted nor explained. >North intended to show a willingness to play in either >major. This was not alerted. >East intended 3H as a cue-bid, but this was also not >alerted. >West understood 3H to be natural and raised to four. >Opposite a weak partner, now obviously with spades, North >believed that four hearts would make and 4 spades a cheap >sacrifice. >Soon the misunderstanding became clear and NS had to run >to 5H, down three for -500. > >There is no convention card for East-West. They have clearly >told everything they knew. >There is no answer from South as to why he did not double >3He. >North states that there is no systemic obligation to double. > >Your opinions ? EW seem to have one of North's cards. North's 4S bid was "at his own risk". He gambled that the opponents knew what they were doing and he lost. Bad luck. 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 Oct 8 21:36:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e98BaIN16621 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 21:36:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from fe090.worldonline.dk (fe090.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.152]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e98Ba9t16614 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 21:36:10 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200010081136.e98Ba9t16614@rgb.anu.edu.au> Received: (qmail 867 invoked by uid 0); 8 Oct 2000 11:36:00 -0000 Received: from 86.ppp1-15.worldonline.dk (HELO idefix) (212.54.77.86) by fe090.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 8 Oct 2000 11:36:00 -0000 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 13:35:58 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [BLML] When To Call The Director? Reply-to: jensogbodil@alesia.dk X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote ( 6 Oct 00): (hand snipped) > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > - - - 2D(1) > Pass 3D (2) Pass 3S(3) > Pass 4C Pass 5C > Pass 5D All Pass > > (1) Multi > (2) GF (or nearly) with diamonds > (3) Weak 2 in spades, without diamond support > Contract: Five diamonds, played by South > > Lead: King of Clubs > > Result: 11 tricks, NS +400 > > TD's statement of Facts: The Director was called after the > board had been played and scored, when West complained > that he had not been told that four clubs showed shortness. I assume that West is complaining that 4C was not alerted. In this tournament, that would be an infraction, of course (provided that 4C was not a misbid), and there would be misinformation. I assume that West never asked about 4C nor the auction. > The Director: The director, who was sitting at the table to > check on the time problems, found that West should have > called as soon as the dummy became visible, and concluded > that there was no damage. A better way of phrasing this would be: The longer it takes West to realize that he would have made a different lead if 4C had been alerted, the less likely it is that he was damaged by the misinformation. So the TD should find out why West did not call until after the hand. If, for instance, he called as soon as play ceased, and it was obvious from his behavior that he was waiting until then only because he thought it was the appropriate time to call, there would not be any real reason to detract from West's credibility. Anyway, this was a WBF event. I believe the conditions of contest require the players to protect themselves by asking questions when the meaning of a call is pertinent to their further actions. It could easily be argued that West is expected to realize that a bid of a new suit at the four level may be conventional, even if it is not alerted, so that he will enquire before his opening lead if he finds it crucial to his lead. Some SOs have alerting regulations that do away with alerts of bids like this exactly for that reason; this is sometimes called "self-alerting". This approach is most useful for experienced players. In tournaments not run by the WBF, there may be less of an obligation on West. The less experienced the players are, the more likely it is that the TD would accept that West might be damaged by the missing alert. > PG: My question is: should West have called the Director as > soon as dummy appeared? Or at the end of the hand? Is one > procedure preferable to the other? West should call as soon as he realizes his problem. This can never harm him (L9B1c), and it may help his case, as we can see here. > I suppose my question could be rephrased as: does the sight > of dummy equal "attention being drawn to an irregularity"? Certainly not. Not until someone at the table makes a remark that 4C should have been alerted is attention drawn to the irregularity. At that time all four players should take steps to call the director. This is, by the way, a case that illustrates a drawback with playing with screens. Without screens, North would undoubtedly have called attention to the missing alert before the opening lead, and West would no longer have been misinformed. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://www.alesia.dk/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Oct 8 21:36:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e98BaNf16622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 21:36:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from fe090.worldonline.dk (fe090.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.152]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e98Ba9t16613 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 21:36:10 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200010081136.e98Ba9t16613@rgb.anu.edu.au> Received: (qmail 855 invoked by uid 0); 8 Oct 2000 11:35:57 -0000 Received: from 86.ppp1-15.worldonline.dk (HELO idefix) (212.54.77.86) by fe090.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 8 Oct 2000 11:35:57 -0000 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 13:35:57 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Squeeze Appeal Reply-to: jensogbodil@alesia.dk X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote ( 6 Oct 00): > > From: David Stevenson > > The EBU L&EC minuutes of 2000-09-27 say: > > > > 'The L&E did not think that it was appropriate for appellants to > > bring cases into the public domain when an appeal was still > > pending.' > > Does this mean we should not discuss appeals (or possible appeals) > with friends or advisors? I guess what we need are definitions of > "public domain" and "still pending." -- In Denmark we have had a very active Usenet-like bulletin board supported by the DBF where everything pertaining to Danish bridge is discussed. This includes aspects of appeals that are under consideration in the National Appeals Committee (NAC) The sentiment expressed by the EBU L&EC is often fielded by participants in such discussions. However, the NAC itself has never expressed a sentiment like the EBU L&EC. We have made a few observations, however: 1. All of the facts presented to the NAC rarely get represented in a public discussion while the case is going on. Thus any overall public discussion would usually not be directly applicable to the NAC's deliberations. 2. The NAC does not prevent its members from staying aware of any public debate about ongoing cases. Some of our members choose to avoid acquaintance with the public debate. All of our members are fully aware that the NAC's rulings are based on the facts we find, our interpretation of the laws and regulations, and appropriate bridge judgement. We do not have a tradition for letting public sentiment have a part in our rulings. 3. The NAC will never participate in a public debate about its own rulings. This holds both during and after the deliberations about the case. We publish our rulings immediately on the WWW, and we do our best to give as thorough an explanation of our ruling and the reasoning behind it as possible. Then we sit back, shut up (easier said than done sometimes) and listen to any ensuing debate. We publish whether our rulings are unanimous, and we may publish the minority opinion in our ruling, but we never continue our internal deliberations in public. 4. Otherwise, The NAC members have a tradition for expressing opinions, providing guidance, and answering questions in public. We also particpate on the bulletin board. This implies that we always have to be careful when a question or debate might pertain to an appeal that is working its way to our forum, since we need to keep out of those debates. We also have to be careful and make sure that we qualify our postings in such a way that they are not construed as official opinions of the NAC. Although in theory this might cause a conflict, in practice we don't have any problems with this. In summary, I disagree with the EBU L&EC's comment. I think the onus is on the EBU L&EC to provide a good ruling regardless of the public debate, not on the rest of the world to refrain from discussing the case. If the EBU L&EC really mean what they say, I suggest that they pursue an amendment to their regulations with a clause to this effect. It seems unfair to chastise a party for inappropriate behavior when the reference is to an implicit rule of conduct that, in my opinion at least, is debatable. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://www.alesia.dk/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Oct 8 21:51:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e98Bope16652 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 21:50:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e98Bolt16648 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 21:50:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot21.domain3.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ya847052 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 21:50:16 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-006-p-217-105.tmns.net.au ([203.54.217.105]) by mail3.bigpond.com (Claudes-Multi-Threaded-MailRouter V2.9c 5/3440481); 08 Oct 2000 21:50:15 Message-ID: <021301c03126$5f136a00$2ce136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] A pragmatic world [was ACBLLC minutes Nov 1998] Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 22:50:01 +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 Grattan Endicott wrote: >... Alternatively, and maybe better, we >must so write the laws that areas where we do not >share the same approach are put into the powers >of regulation - that is more or less where we have >arrived 'de facto' anyway and there is no future in >intransigence. Today the cricket commentators on my radio were discussing in very similar terms the new worldwide Laws of Cricket (introduced this week following meetings in Kenya). They were talking about new laws about LBW and about "sixes" which would be in force worldwide, whereas provision was made for other new cricket rules to be variable regionally (IIRC). Of some interest perhaps is that the broadcaster (Peter Burge) said that in his role as (IIRC) an international match referee he had to attend a five hour meeting during which he was informed of the ramifications of all the rule changes. 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 Oct 8 22:42:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e98CfAv16707 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 22:41:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e98Cf3t16703 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 22:41:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-108.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.108]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA16858 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 14:40:58 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39DEEF82.39911D4C@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 11:40:18 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions: Convention References: <071e01c02f68$0f228a40$189c1e18@san.rr.com> <050c01c02f6d$5f8275e0$e56860cb@laptop> <073c01c02ff4$cf636fe0$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: > > > > > > > > Of course. > > > > > > Read it right: > > > > > > ...conveys a meaning other than: > > > > > > 1. willingness to play in the denomination... > > > 2. high card strength there > > > 3. three or more cards there > > > > > > None of those? It's a convention. > > > > > I don't follow this logic either. > > > > I think Todd is saying that the definition says that a convention must > (my > > emphasis) convey a meaning other than one of those listed. If it does > not > > convey any meaning then it fails the definition's test of convention. > > Well, he's wrong. > > > > As I see it the moot point is "Can 'no meaning' be a meaning other > than > > those listed?" > > > Moot indeed, because that is pretty obviouly not what the writer of the > definition intended. The meaning of a Law "lies not in the words > themselves, but in the mind of the writer," as a wise man once wrote on > BLML. > > If I say, "The color you paint my house must be other than red, white, > or blue, then "no color" is not one of the options. > wrong analogy, Marv. The definition translates into : "A fool is one who paints his house: -red -white or -blue" If you don't paint your house at all, you are not a fool. In that reading, a bid which has "no meaning" has none of the listed meanings, so cannot be called conventional. -- 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 Oct 9 00:15:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e98EEZ516824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 00:14:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from praseodumium.btinternet.com (praseodumium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.82]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e98EESt16820 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 00:14:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.73.184] (helo=D457300) by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13iHDa-0000v5-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 08 Oct 2000 15:14:23 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01c03131$e851b000$b849073e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <071e01c02f68$0f228a40$189c1e18@san.rr.com> <050c01c02f6d$5f8275e0$e56860cb@laptop> <073c01c02ff4$cf636fe0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> <39DEEF82.39911D4C@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions: Convention Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 15:13:16 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk H de W wrote: > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Of course. > > > > > > > > Read it right: > > > > > > > > ...conveys a meaning other than: > > > > > > > > 1. willingness to play in the denomination... > > > > 2. high card strength there > > > > 3. three or more cards there > > > > > > > > None of those? It's a convention. > > > > > > > I don't follow this logic either. > > > > > > I think Todd is saying that the definition says that a convention must > > (my > > > emphasis) convey a meaning other than one of those listed. If it does > > not > > > convey any meaning then it fails the definition's test of convention. > > > > Well, he's wrong. > > > > > > As I see it the moot point is "Can 'no meaning' be a meaning other > > than > > > those listed?" > > > > > Moot indeed, because that is pretty obviouly not what the writer of the > > definition intended. The meaning of a Law "lies not in the words > > themselves, but in the mind of the writer," as a wise man once wrote on > > BLML. A wise man may have written it. But it is not a piece of wisdom. Quite the opposite, for were it so, the Laws would cease to have any meaning at all on the death of the person who wrote them. There are, of course, one or two Laws which do not have very much meaning at all despite the continued viability of their author, but that is another matter. The same wise man also wrote: When Senators have had their sport, And sealed the Law by vote, It matters little what they thought - We hang for what they wrote. Now, that *is* a piece of wisdom. > > If I say, "The color you paint my house must be other than red, white, > > or blue, then "no color" is not one of the options. > > > > wrong analogy, Marv. > > The definition translates into : > > "A fool is one who paints his house: > -red > -white > or -blue" > > If you don't paint your house at all, you are not a fool. > > In that reading, a bid which has "no meaning" has none of > the listed meanings, so cannot be called conventional. Either you or I have lost the plot here, Herman. A bid which has none of the listed meanings may indeed be called conventional - indeed, it must meet this criterion. "Convention: 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." Now, for a call to be a convention, it must by the definition above convey a meaning. It is arguable whether, for example, the 3C call in the sequence 1NT-2NT-3C (forced) conveys a meaning. But if it does not, then it is not a convention. The Definition needs (at least) to be rewritten like this: "Convention: A call that, by partnership agreement, does not convey at least one of the following meanings: willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named); or high-card strength in the suit named; or length (three cards or more) in the suit named." But the question of "willingness to play in the denomination named" is also somewhat vexed. It has been argued that, for example, if one holds such as: void, xx, J10xxxxxx, xxx and passes partner's opening 1S, this does not convey "willingness" to play in spades, because one would far rather play in diamonds. It might be better, in order to silence these objections, to replace "willingness to play in the denomination named" with "acceptance that the caller's side should pass for the remainder of the auction". I am aware that this would make the completion of a transfer, and a forced bid such as 3C above, non-conventional - but that is what I believe them to be under the current definition. Note that, if SOs want such calls to be alerted, they may so order. My suggestion would also resolve this difficulty. Suppose one plays West's pass as forcing in this sequence: West North East South 1S 2H 3H (1) 4S Pass (1) Game-forcing with spade support and high-card strength Is this pass a convention? Well, since East is (presumably) supposed to bid on or double, and there will be some hands on which if East doubles, West will pass, then West will (some of the time) be "willing" to play in the last denomination named (if East is agreeable). Indeed, Meckwell and others play the pass as strongly suggesting that East should double (West's double would strongly suggest that East bid on). This would make West's pass not a convention - but I do not think that most people would regard a forcing pass (especially the Meckwell variety of forcing pass) as other than a conventional call. My suggested definition would make this pass a convention. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 9 02:16:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e98GFWS17019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 02:15:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e98GFPt17015 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 02:15:26 +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 13iI5I-000H0d-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 15:09:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 15:28:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp References: <39DEE392.B2FC53C4@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <39DEE392.B2FC53C4@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <39DEE392.B2FC53C4@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >I would like to hear your opinions on the following ruling: > >The players: >NS: average players, building a partnership and system >E: a visitor from Scotland, his third week in Belgium, >though he also spent some months here two years ago >W: another average player, it's the second time they play >together > >The board: > >19 (EW/S) K 9 8 7 4 > 6 4 3 > K 10 > Q 4 >J A Q 6 5 2 >K 10 5 2 - >A 8 6 3 Q 9 7 5 4 2 >A J 10 9 7 6 3 > 10 3 > A Q J 9 8 7 > J > K 8 5 2 > > W N E S > 2Di > Dbl 2He 3He pass > 4He 4Sp Dbl 5Cl > Dbl 5He Dbl all pass > >Two diamonds was multi, weak in a major or very strong or NT >24-25. >West intended the double to show diamonds, but this was not >alerted nor explained. >North intended to show a willingness to play in either >major. This was not alerted. >East intended 3He as a cue-bid, but this was also not >alerted. >West understood 3He to be natural and raised to four. >Opposite a weak partner, now obviously with spades, North >believed that four hearts would make and 4 spades a cheap >sacrifice. >Soon the misunderstanding became clear and NS had to run to >5He, down three for -500. > >There is no convention card for East-West. They have clearly >told everything they knew. >There is no answer from South as to why he did not double >3He. I'm collecting the 50's. Why should I double? >North states that there is no systemic obligation to double. > >Your opinions ? North psyched, East psyched, South psyched. West psyched. How can I tell what was going on in these players' minds even if I ask them? Clearly no UI as nobody knows what's going on or what the agreements are. Clearly no MI as nobody knows what's going on or what the agreements are. It's just another everyday auction down at the Young Chelsea on a wet Friday night. "John, can you look at this please?" Me: "You guys deserve each other, result stands, now move please" 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 Mon Oct 9 04:04:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e98I4Ps17131 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 04:04:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e98I4Ht17127 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 04:04:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-248.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.248]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA07951 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 20:04:10 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39E07063.3D4C55DD@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 15:02:27 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp 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: <39DEE392.B2FC53C4@village.uunet.be> > Hi Herman, > > Who is asking for a ruling and why? I'm afraid the facts you present > don't even begin to make any infraction (let alone damage) apparent. > Sorry Tim, infraction = non-alert of 3He damage = 5HeX-3 North is vehemently asking for a ruling. I had to give it. > 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/ -- 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 Oct 9 04:09:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e98I9RH17146 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 04:09:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e98I9Kt17142 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 04:09:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-248.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.248]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA08525 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 20:09:16 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39E0B889.2CFBC66D@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 20:10:17 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp References: <39DEE392.B2FC53C4@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > > > >Your opinions ? > North psyched, East psyched, South psyched. West psyched. How can I > tell what was going on in these players' minds even if I ask them? No-one psyched. Everyone thought their bidding was correct. > Clearly no UI as nobody knows what's going on or what the agreements > are. Clearly no MI as nobody knows what's going on or what the > agreements are. It is my opinion that north has the right to know that (maybe) the EW system includes 3He as a cue. > It's just another everyday auction down at the Young > Chelsea on a wet Friday night. "John, can you look at this please?" > > Me: "You guys deserve each other, result stands, now move please" > > 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/ -- 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 Oct 9 04:34:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e98IXZE17171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 04:33:35 +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 e98IXTt17167 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 04:33:30 +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, 8 Oct 2000 11:31:01 -0700 Message-ID: <006a01c03156$1c9be0a0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <002c01c030ab$c6c64f80$189c1e18@san.rr.com> <000601c03109$2a680260$165408c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] A pragmatic world [was ACBLLC minutes Nov 1998] Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 11:32:25 -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: > I do not believe we can avoid allowing options > in matters where the ACBL will not accept the wider > view, and I see it as being for the general good that > we should do so. The ACBL accepted the wider view when it joined the WBF, which requires members to adhere to the WBF Constituion and By-Laws. Moreover, it has more representation in WBF organizations, including the WBFLC, than is warranted if you go by numbers of members. The ACBL Board of Directors should be reminded of the ACBL's obligations and asked to rein in the ACBLLC or replace some of its members. There are several other means of persusasion, which doesn't have to be strong-arm. The WBF could: 1. Cite the Olympic Charter, which includes a requirement that any sport/game that wants to participate in the Olympics must have an international body that is in full charge of the rules, and enforces them. The IOC doesn't want a fragmented sport/game in the Olympics. 2. Reluctantly state that holding WBF events in ACBL-land would not be appropriate, given the ACBL's non-compliance with the WBF Constitution and By-Laws. > Alternatively, and maybe better, we > must so write the laws that areas where we do not > share the same approach are put into the powers > of regulation - that is more or less where we have > arrived 'de facto' anyway and there is no future in > intransigence. The Laws have already provided plenty of leeway to the ACBL in the form of Elections. If they want more, let them wait until the Laws are revised. The line must be drawn between what constitutes an interpretation of the meaning of a Law (WBFLC's sole responsibility, ultimately) and what is merely a difference in application of that meaning. For instance, the concept of what constitutes an LA is applied differently in different places, and that is fine. There is no argument about what "logical" means, only how reasonable an alternative must be to make it logical. Different *interpretations* of the same words are intolerable and largely preventable: Write the Laws with simple, unambiguous language. > > This is not posturing. It is an exercise in diplomacy > and the art of living on one planet where, in bridge, > there is no superpower to send in the gunboats. But there are gentler means of persuasion. The U.S. was induced to conform with the international rules of soccer without the use of gunboats. 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 Oct 9 05:34:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e98JXOe17212 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 05:33:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e98JXIt17208 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 05:33:18 +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, 8 Oct 2000 12:30:49 -0700 Message-ID: <007e01c0315e$779f7680$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <071e01c02f68$0f228a40$189c1e18@san.rr.com> <050c01c02f6d$5f8275e0$e56860cb@laptop> <073c01c02ff4$cf636fe0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> <39DEEF82.39911D4C@village.uunet.be> <000b01c03131$e851b000$b849073e@D457300> Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions: Convention Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 12:32:06 -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 David Burn wrote: > > The Definition needs (at least) to be rewritten like this: > > "Convention: A call that, by partnership agreement, does not convey at > least one of the following meanings: willingness to play in the > denomination named (or in the last denomination named); or high-card > strength in the suit named; or length (three cards or more) in the suit > named." > I thought that's what it said already, but perhaps BLs need some clarification. The trouble with this definition is that, for instance, a 2S opening showing spades and clubs would not be a convention, as surely most people believe. The word "convention" ought to be dropped, because its only use is to define calls and plays that may be controlled by an SO. A call whose meaning applies only to the denomination named should not be controllable, no matter what strength (or length, if a suit) it promises. For instance, an SO should not be allowed to bar the bidding of one's shortest suit in partnership-defined circumstances. (I don't mean to contest the current restriction on extra-light openings, a separate subject). Going back to a form of the previous definition, I like, instead of a definition: "A sponsoring organization shall not restrict the use of a call whose partnership meaning relates to no denomination other than the one named, or (in the case of a double, redouble, or pass) to a last-named denomination. In the case of a notrump bid, only partnership agreements that allow the bid with a small singleton or void in an unbid suit, or no strength in a suit bid by the opponents, may be restricted." For instance, an Alert could be required for a free 1NT response that doesn't imply strength in RHO's suit, and opening notrump bids with a void or small singleton (by partnership agreement, explicit or implicit) could be barred. This needs more than I can formulate offhand, to the effect that an SO may control the use of a call that has no meaning, and that normal inferences as to hand distribution and/or strength, if not directly related to one or more other denominations, do not make a call controllable. For instance, a canapé opening with a possible three-card heart suit could not be controlled, as the ACBL does now (with doubtful legality). 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 Oct 9 06:15:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e98KF4n17256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 06:15:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e98KEwt17252 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 06:14:59 +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, 8 Oct 2000 13:12:30 -0700 Message-ID: <009001c03164$4a38c920$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <071e01c02f68$0f228a40$189c1e18@san.rr.com> <050c01c02f6d$5f8275e0$e56860cb@laptop> <073c01c02ff4$cf636fe0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> <39DEEF82.39911D4C@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions: Convention Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 13:13:50 -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" > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > If I say, "The color you paint my house must be other than red, white, > > or blue, then "no color" is not one of the options. > > > > wrong analogy, Marv. > Agreed. My fingers ran ahead of my brain. 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 Oct 9 08:15:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e98MFAL17341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 08:15:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e98MF1t17337 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 08:15:02 +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 13iOia-0005oK-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 23:14:53 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 23:11:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp References: <39DEE392.B2FC53C4@village.uunet.be> <39E0B889.2CFBC66D@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <39E0B889.2CFBC66D@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <39E0B889.2CFBC66D@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >"John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: >> >> > >> >Your opinions ? >> North psyched, East psyched, South psyched. West psyched. How can I >> tell what was going on in these players' minds even if I ask them? > >No-one psyched. Everyone thought their bidding was correct. > >> Clearly no UI as nobody knows what's going on or what the agreements >> are. Clearly no MI as nobody knows what's going on or what the >> agreements are. > >It is my opinion that north has the right to know that >(maybe) the EW system includes 3He as a cue. > But it seems perfectly clear to me that they had *NO* idea what the bid meant and I wouldn't presume to think that they have a CPU here. Nah, they all produced bids from various parts of the solar system, the 6th planet of Alpha Centauri, 2 lesser moons of the dogstar, and a bit of land off the coast of England. Nobody had any idea what any of them meant, with the exception of the opening bid perhaps. >> It's just another everyday auction down at the Young >> Chelsea on a wet Friday night. "John, can you look at this please?" >> >> Me: "You guys deserve each other, result stands, now move please" >> -- 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 Oct 9 09:47:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e98Nko017433 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 09:46:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e98Nkjt17429 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 09:46:46 +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 KAA01370 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 10:41:48 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 09 Oct 2000 10:42:32 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] too late for TD? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 10:43:31 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 09/10/2000 10:39:26 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Bley enquired: >Hi, > >just a small case. > >2 hours after finish of the round (incl. score made >available; L92B) a player complains about his >opponents because he used UI. The facts are that this >is the case and there was an infraction. Is there any >way for the TD to do sth? >score correction? (maybe splitted?) >penalty points? >what else? A change in scores is not permitted after the correction period has expired (30 minutes, unless the SO regulates otherwise). This would logically mean that a score-changing PP is also illegal after 30 minutes. If the TD's investigation of the case discovers a prima facie violation of L73B2, the TD should forward the facts to the SO's Law and Ethics committee for resolution. 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 Oct 9 13:11:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e993B7J17570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 13:11:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from falcon.prod.itd.earthlink.net (falcon.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e993B1t17566 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 13:11:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-001kslawrP111.dialsprint.net [158.252.181.71]) by falcon.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3-EL_1_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA06605 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 20:10:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <200010082210300520.02E9C09C@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <006a01c03156$1c9be0a0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> References: <002c01c030ab$c6c64f80$189c1e18@san.rr.com> <000601c03109$2a680260$165408c3@dodona> <006a01c03156$1c9be0a0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.10.03.02 (3) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 22:10:30 -0500 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A pragmatic world [was ACBLLC minutes Nov 1998] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >1. Cite the Olympic Charter, which includes a requirement that >any sport/game that wants to participate in the Olympics must >have an international body that is in full charge of the rules, >and enforces them. The IOC doesn't want a fragmented sport/game >in the Olympics. Surely several sports already use different rules inside the United States and internationally. Compare international basketball with the form played in U.S. collegiate and professional leagues. As long as the contestants are aware that, say, the shot clock is different and the three-second lane is a different shape when they compete internationally, no one raises a fuss. Best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 9 14:06:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9945xs17629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 14:05:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9945rt17625 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 14:05:54 +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, 8 Oct 2000 21:03:24 -0700 Message-ID: <009801c031a6$13715320$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] ACBLLC Cincinnatti minutes (3/00) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 21:04:48 -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 The last item in the minutes of this meeting: "A discussion was held concerning when and how to apply the part of the footnote to Laws 69, 70, and 71 which refers to "the class of player involved." No consensus was reached except that there was some feeling that it should make a difference if all players at the table were expert level rather than just one pair or player. For example, in the case of AKT9 opposite Q8xx, if an expert claimed against non-experts, without stating a line of play, no consideration should be given that the expert would play the Ace or King first. However, in an all expert game, consideration should be given." A novel idea. Evidently in some minds "the class of player involved" refers to the opponents of the claimer, not to the claimer. I hope that "some feeling" was felt by no more than one attendee. 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 Oct 9 14:50:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e994ngu17661 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 14:49:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e994nat17657 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 14:49:37 +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, 8 Oct 2000 21:47:08 -0700 Message-ID: <00ac01c031ac$2f471f20$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <002c01c030ab$c6c64f80$189c1e18@san.rr.com> <000601c03109$2a680260$165408c3@dodona> <006a01c03156$1c9be0a0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> <200010082210300520.02E9C09C@mail.earthlink.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] A pragmatic world [was ACBLLC minutes Nov 1998] Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 21:48:26 -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: "Brian Baresch" > >1. Cite the Olympic Charter, which includes a requirement that > >any sport/game that wants to participate in the Olympics must > >have an international body that is in full charge of the rules, > >and enforces them. The IOC doesn't want a fragmented sport/game > >in the Olympics. > > Surely several sports already use different rules inside the United States > and internationally. Compare international basketball with the form played > in U.S. collegiate and professional leagues. As long as the contestants are > aware that, say, the shot clock is different and the three-second lane is a > different shape when they compete internationally, no one raises a fuss. > I didn't meant to say that an international organization for a sport/game must dictate identical rules for all countries, only that it must be in charge. The Olympic Charter (OC) puts it this way: "Under the supreme Authority of the IOC, the Olympic Movement encompasses organizations, athletes and other persons who agree to be guided by the Olympic Charter. The criterion for belonging to the Olympic Movement is recognition by the IOC. The organization and management of sport must be controlled by the independent sport organizations recognized as such." I take that to mean that the WBF must control the organization and management of contract bridge if it wishes to act as an International Federation (IF) in repreaenting the game for purposes of participation in the Olympics. More from the OC: 1 The role of the IFs is to: 1.1 establish and enforce, in accordance with the Olympic spirit, the rules concerning the practice of their respective sports and to ensure their application. For basketball, the IF is the F.I.B.A. I presume it establishes and enforces the rules to be followed by its member organizations, no doubt accommodating their wishes to be independent in regard to local rules variations. The Constitution and By-Laws of the WBF do not provide for such independence, since they say the WBF LC is solely responsible for the writing and interpretion of the Laws. I doubt that the International Olympic Committee would find the current WBF-ACBL relationship suitable for an IF wishing to participate in the Olympics. If the WBF Constitution and By-Laws were to be revised to grant independence to the ACBL in the writing and interpretion of the Laws, while maintaining complete control over interzonal events (including the Olympics), that would probably be okay. I don't think we players want that. 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 Oct 9 15:54:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e995rUs17709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 15:53:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f188.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.188]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e995rPt17705 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 15:53:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 22:53:17 -0700 Received: from 172.141.3.243 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 09 Oct 2000 05:53:17 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.141.3.243] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions: Convention Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 22:53:17 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Oct 2000 05:53:17.0307 (UTC) FILETIME=[387F1CB0:01C031B5] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "David Burn" >The Definition needs (at least) to be rewritten like this: > >"Convention: A call that, by partnership agreement, does not convey at >least one of the following meanings: willingness to play in the >denomination named (or in the last denomination named); or high-card >strength in the suit named; or length (three cards or more) in the suit >named." That would suck! As 1NT-2S (showing spades and a minor) would cease to be conventional. It not only has to show at least one of those meanings, but it can show no other other than overall strength of the hand. -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 Oct 9 16:23:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e996NK017742 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 16:23:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e996NEt17738 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 16:23:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.84] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13iWL4-0005KW-00; Mon, 09 Oct 2000 07:23:07 +0100 Message-ID: <004b01c031b9$95b8c940$545408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <39E07063.3D4C55DD@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 07:18:39 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott " The weak have one weapon: the errors of those who think they are strong." - Georges Bidault ----- Original Message ----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2000 2:02 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp > > > > Sorry Tim, infraction = non-alert of 3He > damage = 5HeX-3 > North is vehemently asking for a ruling. I had to give it. > +=+ Herman, I think you are asking a question that cannot be answered on a world-wide basis. We need to know about the alerting regulation in force. Is an alert required when a player does not know what his partner's call means? Is an alert required when a partnership makes a call about which it has no partnership understanding? Or was it ruled that the partnership had an understanding, along the lines, perhaps, of a law proposal I have seen that a partnership playing a complex convention (e.g. 'red', 'brown', HUM) shall be treated as having understandings as to the meanings of all its related calls? (In which case the presumption absent other evidence is mis-explanation.) You need to show a basis for ruling an infraction. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 9 16:35:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e996ZXn17762 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 16:35:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e996ZRt17758 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 16:35:28 +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; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 23:32:57 -0700 Message-ID: <00c701c031ba$f7f0b7c0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: , Subject: [BLML] Older ACBLLC interpretations Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 23:34:12 -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 The welcome publication of ACBLLC minutes, going back to the Philadelphia meeting of March 1996, is evidently going to stop there. ACBLScore's Tech Files include some earlier items from ACBLLC meetings. Here is one: July 1995 - While there is a legal obligation to correct an incorrect or incomplete explanation, care must be taken to phrase the correction in such a way as to not mislead the opponents. The TD may still adjust the score because of the original failure to Alert or explain correctly at the proper time by the proper person when an opponent is misled even though the player is mandated by Law to correct the explanation. A further statement on this subject is contained in the July 1997 published minutes: When a player's explanation has correctly described his partner's hand but not the pair's agreement, and even though the partner is required to correct the explanation before the defenders make an opening lead, ACBL may make it policy that the player should make a disclaimer statement before giving the correct explanation. This may also be true when there has been a failure to alert during the auction. If no disclaimer is given, the director may treat the original offense as the one causing the damage and adjust the board to protect the non-offenders. #################### Lille interpretation #15, which came later (1998), says that a disclaimer is not obligatory but may be offered. That seems to have been accepted by the ACBLLC, since no comment about it was included in its Orlando minutes. Maybe they forgot the above statements. It is better to get partner to correct hir MI rather than do it oneself. If partner says I can have five hearts, but agreement is that I cannot, the opponents are not going to be happy with me when I correct the MI and then show up with five hearts. Since the TD must be called before any correction is given [per L9B1(a)], the best procedure is to wait until the TD requires a correction before it is given, and hope that the forgetful one can provide it. If not, the TD should explain to the opponents that a player must describe a partnership agreement accurately even if the correction does not match hir holding. 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 Oct 9 18:28:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e998RPq17837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 18:27:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e998RFt17829 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 18:27:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-109.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.109]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA28420 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 10:27:11 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39E17FBC.EECDEEC7@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 10:20:12 +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] Ruling in Antwerp References: <39DEE392.B2FC53C4@village.uunet.be> <39E0B889.2CFBC66D@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > > > >It is my opinion that north has the right to know that > >(maybe) the EW system includes 3He as a cue. > > > But it seems perfectly clear to me that they had *NO* idea what the bid > meant and I wouldn't presume to think that they have a CPU here. Nah, > they all produced bids from various parts of the solar system, the 6th > planet of Alpha Centauri, 2 lesser moons of the dogstar, and a bit of > land off the coast of England. Nobody had any idea what any of them > meant, with the exception of the opening bid perhaps. > How is this possible ??? You John, a director, should be more sympathetic than most. I understand that players have no sympathy. But you are a director. Suppose I were to say : East, a scotsman, is very surprised to see 3He not alerted. In Scotland, that always shows a void, and he thought this was world-wide. (No scots jokes please, nor belgian ones) Ruling ? And what is the difference here ? The TD is to rule misinformation barring proff to the contrary. Why not here ? By now you may have gathered that I was the unfortunate North player. I found a ruling automatic, wanted to give one, and they protested. I found no-one in the club willing to see my point, and what was worse, no one willing to say "Herman is an international TD, he may well be right on this one". Now I believe the whole world has gone bonkers. Well, I've been alone before. But I would still like to hear some voices of support. Why does everyone have sympathy for East-West, who butched up a bidding, ended up in a 4-0 fit and yet were rescued ? While no-one seems to have any sympathy for North-South, who made not a single BAD call, and ended up -500 ? -- 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 Oct 9 18:28:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e998RP617836 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 18:27:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e998REt17828 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 18:27:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-109.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.109]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA28398 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 10:27:08 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39E17E05.2F37A17A@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 10:12:53 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp References: <39E07063.3D4C55DD@village.uunet.be> <004b01c031b9$95b8c940$545408c3@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: > > > > > Sorry Tim, infraction = non-alert of 3He > > damage = 5HeX-3 > > North is vehemently asking for a ruling. I had to give it. > > > +=+ Herman, I think you are asking a question > that cannot be answered on a world-wide basis. > We need to know about the alerting regulation > in force. Come on, Grattan, Do you know a single alerting regulation in which it is not required to alert a bid made on a void ? In any case, in the Belgian alert regulation, this needed to be alerted. I supposed this would be understood, or I would have said so. > Is an alert required when a player does > not know what his partner's call means? That is a different question, but I believe the answer is YES. Of course it is. Or any ruling becomes meaningless. People occasionally misinform their opponents. And it is simply because they forgot what their partner meant. > Is an > alert required when a partnership makes a call > about which it has no partnership understanding? Only if it can prove there was NO partnership understanding. But when one player bids a void, he at least assumes there is some partnership understanding. Are the words of the footnote so void "the TD is to assume misinformation in the absense of proof to the contrary". > Or was it ruled that the partnership had an > understanding, along the lines, perhaps, of a law > proposal I have seen that a partnership playing > a complex convention (e.g. 'red', 'brown', HUM) > shall be treated as having understandings as to > the meanings of all its related calls? (In which > case the presumption absent other evidence is > mis-explanation.) > You need to show a basis for ruling an > infraction. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Not alerting a bid made on a void seems an infraction to me. -- 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 Oct 9 19:30:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e999Tb817894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 19:29:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e999TUt17890 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 19:29:31 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id KAA18251 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 10:29:21 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 10:29 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp 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: <39E07063.3D4C55DD@village.uunet.be> HdW wrote: > > Sorry Tim, infraction = non-alert of 3He damage = 5HeX-3 > North is vehemently asking for a ruling. I had to give it. > Seems obvious to me. No agreement, no alert required. West's bidding, together with the newness of the partnership is sufficient evidence for me to find that no understanding exists and rule MB not ME/MI. Just be grateful they butchered the defence and let you get away with 3 off. Even with a more experienced partnership where I thought some degree of agreement was possible I would not adjust. In this situation I think EW finding 3N/5D and forcing a sacrifice is almost certain. 5Hx-3 is the best NS can get in these circumstances. 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 Oct 9 19:54:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e999sP617933 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 19:54:25 +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 e999sCt17920 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 19:54:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13iZdF-000LOX-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 10:54:08 +0100 Message-ID: <$rEB6nAOcQ45EwZc@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 00:45:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Squeeze Appeal References: <200010081136.e98Ba9t16613@rgb.anu.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <200010081136.e98Ba9t16613@rgb.anu.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jens & Bodil wrote: >Steve Willner wrote ( 6 Oct 00): > >> > From: David Stevenson >> > The EBU L&EC minuutes of 2000-09-27 say: >> > >> > 'The L&E did not think that it was appropriate for appellants to >> > bring cases into the public domain when an appeal was still >> > pending.' >> >> Does this mean we should not discuss appeals (or possible appeals) >> with friends or advisors? I guess what we need are definitions of >> "public domain" and "still pending." -- > >In Denmark we have had a very active Usenet-like bulletin board >supported by the DBF where everything pertaining to Danish bridge is >discussed. This includes aspects of appeals that are under >consideration in the National Appeals Committee (NAC) > >The sentiment expressed by the EBU L&EC is often fielded by >participants in such discussions. However, the NAC itself has never >expressed a sentiment like the EBU L&EC. We have made a few >observations, however: > >1. All of the facts presented to the NAC rarely get represented in a >public discussion while the case is going on. Thus any overall >public discussion would usually not be directly applicable to the >NAC's deliberations. > >2. The NAC does not prevent its members from staying aware of any >public debate about ongoing cases. Some of our members choose to >avoid acquaintance with the public debate. All of our members are >fully aware that the NAC's rulings are based on the facts we find, >our interpretation of the laws and regulations, and appropriate >bridge judgement. We do not have a tradition for letting public >sentiment have a part in our rulings. > >3. The NAC will never participate in a public debate about its own >rulings. This holds both during and after the deliberations about >the case. We publish our rulings immediately on the WWW, and we do >our best to give as thorough an explanation of our ruling and the >reasoning behind it as possible. Then we sit back, shut up (easier >said than done sometimes) and listen to any ensuing debate. We >publish whether our rulings are unanimous, and we may publish the >minority opinion in our ruling, but we never continue our internal >deliberations in public. > >4. Otherwise, The NAC members have a tradition for expressing >opinions, providing guidance, and answering questions in public. We >also particpate on the bulletin board. This implies that we always >have to be careful when a question or debate might pertain to an >appeal that is working its way to our forum, since we need to keep >out of those debates. We also have to be careful and make sure that >we qualify our postings in such a way that they are not construed as >official opinions of the NAC. Although in theory this might cause a >conflict, in practice we don't have any problems with this. > >In summary, I disagree with the EBU L&EC's comment. I think the onus >is on the EBU L&EC to provide a good ruling regardless of the public >debate, not on the rest of the world to refrain from discussing the >case. There is no question of the EBU L&EC providing decisions in ordinary appeals. I am quite confident that we can do so in NA cases but that is not what we are talking about here. As you are aware, we do not believe in the NAC approach: we believe in ACs on site. The opinion given here concerns such ACs. >If the EBU L&EC really mean what they say, I suggest that they pursue >an amendment to their regulations with a clause to this effect. It >seems unfair to chastise a party for inappropriate behavior when the >reference is to an implicit rule of conduct that, in my opinion at >least, is debatable. Why does everyone want regulations? This is not Formula One motor racing. The EBU L&EC have made a statement: what do you need a regulation for? So that the Bridge Lawyers can fight over details? -- 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 Oct 9 19:54:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e999sQ917934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 19:54:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e999sCt17922 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 19:54:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13iZdF-000LOW-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 10:54:09 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 23:41:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] too late for TD? References: <023101c03043$e36a23e0$983a1dc2@rabbit> <5.0.0.25.0.20001007142309.00a6e170@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.0.20001007142309.00a6e170@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: >just a small case. > >2 hours after finish of the round (incl. score made available; L92B) a >player complains about his opponents because he used UI. The facts are that >this is the case and there was an infraction. Is there any way for the TD >to do sth? >score correction? (maybe splitted?) No. >penalty points? No. >what else? Nothing else. There is really little point in making a Law to cover a specific situation and then assuming it does not apply in that situation. However. The SO has the right to extend the half-hour limit. The EBU does in most cases [regulations as per WB {White book} 1993. If there is a good reason why the above situation should be covered then why has the SO not done so? What is a good reason: if they are using duplimate boards, and it was the first match of an afternoon, and copies of the hands are only available after the third match then the SO should extend the Correction Period until a time when players have been able to see the copies of the hands. -- 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 Oct 9 19:54:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e999sMv17932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 19:54:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 e999sCt17921 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 19:54:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13iZdF-000LOY-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 10:54:08 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 00:55:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp References: <39DEE392.B2FC53C4@village.uunet.be> <39E0B889.2CFBC66D@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <39E0B889.2CFBC66D@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: >"John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: >> >> > >> >Your opinions ? >> North psyched, East psyched, South psyched. West psyched. How can I >> tell what was going on in these players' minds even if I ask them? > >No-one psyched. Everyone thought their bidding was correct. > >> Clearly no UI as nobody knows what's going on or what the agreements >> are. Clearly no MI as nobody knows what's going on or what the >> agreements are. > >It is my opinion that north has the right to know that >(maybe) the EW system includes 3He as a cue. A cue of what? If the North bid was natural then surely it is general bridge knowledge that a cue-bid in a natural bid suit is not natural. If the North bid was not natural ... but it wasn't alerted. I do dislike Bridge Lawyers - and I am quite sure that North-South not only have no case but know it, if they are experienced. If inexperienced, fair enough, just rule against them. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 9 20:36:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e99AZZA17976 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 20:35:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e99AZSt17972 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 20:35:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.0.ap (resu)) id MAA27645; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 12:35:06 +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 MAA12152; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 12:35:19 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001009124534.007e7e30@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 12:45:34 +0200 To: David J Grabiner , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] The Masochism Tango In-Reply-To: <00100614333505.00736@psa836> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20001006082624.00b73e30@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20001006082624.00b73e30@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 14:30 6/10/00 +0000, David J Grabiner wrote: >On Fri, 06 Oct 2000, you wrote: > >Here's an example the other way around. You are declarer and have >made a harmless revoke that the defenders did not notice. Is it >unethical to call the TD at the end of play and ask to be penalized one >trick? Remember that there is no obligation to draw attention to your >own revoke, as long as you have not conecealed it. AG : I wouldn't call. Since the opponents didn't react, and since their job is to react, I would assume I'm wrong in thinking I revoked (it happened before). The fear of being ridiculed when it is discovered that I'm wrong in begging for a penalty, and the danger to get one after all for disrupting the smoothness of the tournament, would be enough to deter me from calling. And, yes, I value fear of ridicule at least as high as ethics. 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 Oct 9 20:39:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e99Ade617988 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 20:39:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e99AdXt17984 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 20:39:33 +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 MAA28632; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 12:37:43 +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 MAA14526; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 12:39:22 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001009124938.008adcb0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 12:49:38 +0200 To: "Thomas Dehn" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions: Convention In-Reply-To: <023101c03043$e36a23e0$983a1dc2@rabbit> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:48 7/10/00 +0200, you wrote: > >"0-37 HCP, any distribution" is a meaning, too. AG : no, it's not. According to the principles of information theory, any information that doesn't restrict the range of possibilities is no information at all ; in shorter words it doesn't exist. Since many systems are based on this theory, you can't gainsay it is compatible with bridge. 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 Oct 9 21:11:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e99BBjs18035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 21:11:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (guppy.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e99BBct18031 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 21:11:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.0.ap (guppy)) id NAA10752; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 13:09:50 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id NAA05935; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 13:11:29 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001009132145.008b1100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 13:21:45 +0200 To: Herman De Wael , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp In-Reply-To: <39DEE392.B2FC53C4@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:49 7/10/00 +0200, you wrote: >I would like to hear your opinions on the following ruling: > >The players: >NS: average players, building a partnership and system >E: a visitor from Scotland, his third week in Belgium, >though he also spent some months here two years ago >W: another average player, it's the second time they play >together > >The board: > >19 (EW/S) K 9 8 7 4 > 6 4 3 > K 10 > Q 4 >J A Q 6 5 2 >K 10 5 2 - >A 8 6 3 Q 9 7 5 4 2 >A J 10 9 7 6 3 > 10 3 > A Q J 9 8 7 > J > K 8 5 2 > > W N E S > 2Di > Dbl 2He 3He pass > 4He 4Sp Dbl 5Cl > Dbl 5He Dbl all pass > >Two diamonds was multi, weak in a major or very strong or NT >24-25. >West intended the double to show diamonds, but this was not >alerted nor explained. AG : I would say that the 'standard' sense of a double over a conventional bid would be showing the suit, so this shouldn't be alerted (we had that case in our saturday match : the opponent (note to Herman : Veronique Driessens) doubled with 5S/5D, intending to show diamonds and decide thereafter. This was not alerted. We agreed that there shouldn't have been one. >North intended to show a willingness to play in either >major. This was not alerted. AG : should have been. >East intended 3He as a cue-bid, but this was also not >alerted. >West understood 3He to be natural and raised to four. >Opposite a weak partner, now obviously with spades, North >believed that four hearts would make and 4 spades a cheap >sacrifice. >Soon the misunderstanding became clear and NS had to run to >5He, down three for -500. AG : it sometimes happens, facing a Multi, that you are too clever. Multi was designed to trouble opponents. It worked perfectly here, and N/S were the victims of it, because North was too clever. I don't see why you should request West to alert 3H, because : 1) they probably have no agreement about it 2) he clearly took it as natural 3) there is no evidence that it was conventional. >There is no convention card for East-West. They have clearly >told everything they knew. AG : right. So they can't be fired for anything, except perhaps for having no CC (a very bad Belgian habit). >There is no answer from South as to why he did not double >3He. >North states that there is no systemic obligation to double. AG : of course. You should let the opponents find out the hard way. >Your opinions ? AG : North assumed E/W knew precisely what they were doing. This is usually wrong in such sequences. Let him pay the price. 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 Oct 9 22:37:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e99Ca3018263 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 22:36:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e99CZkt18250 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 22:35:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-85.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.85]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA18923 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 14:35:42 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39E1B858.D39A3057@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 14:21:44 +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] Ruling in Antwerp 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: > > > Seems obvious to me. No agreement, no alert required. > West's bidding, together with the newness of the partnership is > sufficient evidence for me to find that no understanding exists and > rule MB not ME/MI. > > Just be grateful they butchered the defence and let you get away with > 3 off. > > Even with a more experienced partnership where I thought some degree > of agreement was possible I would not adjust. In this situation I > think EW finding 3N/5D and forcing a sacrifice is almost certain. > 5Hx-3 is the best NS can get in these circumstances. > That is indeed a valid point. 5H-3 might well be where the bidding will also end with alerts. So let's keep it on the theoretical level. Is the non-alert of a conventional (-ly intended) bid no infraction when partners can make believe they have no agreements ? East explained he intended it as a cue-bid. -- 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 Oct 9 22:37:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e99Ca3Q18264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 22:36:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e99CZmt18254 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 22:35:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-85.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.85]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA18952 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 14:35:44 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39E1B9F1.9E04E9D4@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 14:28:33 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp References: <3.0.6.32.20001009132145.008b1100@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: > > > > >Two diamonds was multi, weak in a major or very strong or NT > >24-25. > >West intended the double to show diamonds, but this was not > >alerted nor explained. > > AG : I would say that the 'standard' sense of a double over a conventional > bid would be showing the suit, so this shouldn't be alerted (we had that > case in our saturday match : the opponent (note to Herman : Veronique > Driessens) doubled with 5S/5D, intending to show diamonds and decide > thereafter. This was not alerted. We agreed that there shouldn't have been > one. > OK > >North intended to show a willingness to play in either > >major. This was not alerted. > > AG : should have been. > I find this strange. After the double, surely any bid should be convertible. Even without the double, 2 Hearts should be alerted, and it often isn't. I don't see how the opponents could be fooled by the non-alert. Anyway, that was not a problem at the table. > >East intended 3He as a cue-bid, but this was also not > >alerted. > >West understood 3He to be natural and raised to four. > >Opposite a weak partner, now obviously with spades, North > >believed that four hearts would make and 4 spades a cheap > >sacrifice. > >Soon the misunderstanding became clear and NS had to run to > >5He, down three for -500. > > AG : it sometimes happens, facing a Multi, that you are too clever. Multi > was designed to trouble opponents. It worked perfectly here, and N/S were > the victims of it, because North was too clever. I don't see why you should > request West to alert 3H, because : > 1) they probably have no agreement about it The why did he do it ? He said it was intended as a cue. > 2) he clearly took it as natural Well, you are always going to believe yourself, won't you ? > 3) there is no evidence that it was conventional. How about the fact that he did it ? "The TD is to assume misinformation rather than misbid". > > >There is no convention card for East-West. They have clearly > >told everything they knew. > > AG : right. So they can't be fired for anything, except perhaps for having > no CC (a very bad Belgian habit). > Well, in most of the misinformation cases the player has told everything he knew. And we still rule against him. And even say to him, "I believe you when you say that you have told everything you knew, but the Laws force me to rule against you anyway". > >There is no answer from South as to why he did not double > >3He. > >North states that there is no systemic obligation to double. > > AG : of course. You should let the opponents find out the hard way. > > >Your opinions ? > > AG : North assumed E/W knew precisely what they were doing. This is usually > wrong in such sequences. Let him pay the price. > And when it is right ? Give away my very clear sacrifice ? -- 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 Oct 9 22:37:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e99CZxl18262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 22:36:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e99CZit18249 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 22:35:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-85.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.85]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA18891 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 14:35:40 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39E1B77E.32911A04@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 14:18:06 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp References: <39DEE392.B2FC53C4@village.uunet.be> <39E0B889.2CFBC66D@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: > > > > >It is my opinion that north has the right to know that > >(maybe) the EW system includes 3He as a cue. > > A cue of what? > > If the North bid was natural then surely it is general bridge > knowledge that a cue-bid in a natural bid suit is not natural. > > If the North bid was not natural ... but it wasn't alerted. > > I do dislike Bridge Lawyers - and I am quite sure that North-South not > only have no case but know it, if they are experienced. If > inexperienced, fair enough, just rule against them. > As revealed in the meantime, I was North. You David, are saying that I should have realised that 3He is a cue, so the non-alert should not surprise me. Well, it did surprise me. I myself know that 2He is convertible. OK, partner did not alert that. So ? Just put 5 hearts in both east and west, and six spades in north. 4 hearts just made. "Why did you not bid 4 Spades ?" asks partner. Because I should realize that maybe opponents are having a bidding misunderstanding !! Please ! Where is the Bridge-lawyering ? Do you consider 4Sp to be wild, gambling (or even irrational) ? Do you find souths pass wild or gambling ? Do you really think I am trying to get something back from my own mistakes ? Do you really think EW deserve the top they got ? -- 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 Oct 9 23:26:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e99DQ8o18337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 23:26:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e99DPPt18333 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 23:25:37 +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 e99DOTc02923 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 14:24:30 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id e99DOTC18563 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 14:24:29 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 09 Oct 2000 13:24:28 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA10473 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 14:24:28 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id OAA05503 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 14:24:27 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 14:24:27 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200010091324.OAA05503@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: > > As revealed in the meantime, I was North. > > You David, are saying that I should have realised that 3He > is a cue, so the non-alert should not surprise me. > > Well, it did surprise me. > I myself know that 2He is convertible. > OK, partner did not alert that. So ? > > Just put 5 hearts in both east and west, and six spades in > north. > > 4 hearts just made. > > "Why did you not bid 4 Spades ?" asks partner. > > Because I should realize that maybe opponents are having a > bidding misunderstanding !! > > Please ! > > Where is the Bridge-lawyering ? > > Do you consider 4Sp to be wild, gambling (or even > irrational) ? > Do you find souths pass wild or gambling ? > > Do you really think I am trying to get something back from > my own mistakes ? > > Do you really think EW deserve the top they got ? > Herman I am not a particular convention-fascist and have had my share of good and bad boards playing the multi for (oh-my-god) 20 years. As one player to another, I have little sympathy for NS. You play a convention which is (in practice) awkward to defend against, and which will oftern get good results, especially when opponents have not discussed their defence. Opponents have an ostensibly natural auction to 4H when partner has a weak to in one major. I would be very suspicious that they knew what they were doing after X of 2D was not alerted. I would find some way to ask East/West if they had an agreed defence to 2D. When it was clear they didn't, nothing on earth would persuade me to bid 4S. If you want to sacrifice in 4S over their 4H when partner has a weak two in spades, play 2S as a weak two in spades. If you want good results when opponents defenses don't work properly, play 2D to include a weak two in spades. But don't complain to the TD when their misunderstand causes you to misguess. As a TD. I may in some circumstances have to rule in your favour. Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 9 23:56:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e99Dtwn18362 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 23:55:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e99Dtpt18358 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 23:55:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from Panther1201.eiu.edu (Panther1201.eiu.edu [139.67.12.186]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA27567 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 09:04:03 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001009085423.007c7640@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 08:54:23 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp In-Reply-To: <39E1B858.D39A3057@village.uunet.be> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:21 PM 10/9/00 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Is the non-alert of a conventional (-ly intended) bid no >infraction when partners can make believe they have no >agreements ? Yes. If the TD can be convinced that the conventionally intended bid was not a partnership agreement, then it doesn't have to be alerted. In this case the newness of the partnership combined with the very obvious failure of partner to deduce the conventionally intended meaning is sufficient evidence for this TD, at least to be convinced. Obviously, it is not sufficient for them to simply _say_ ['make believe'] that they have no agreement. >East explained he intended it as a cue-bid. Irrelevant. >Herman DE WAEL Respectfully, Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 10 00:18:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e99EICL18388 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 00:18:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e99EI6t18384 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 00:18:07 +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 KAA15525 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 10:18:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA29297 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 10:18:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 10:18:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200010091418.KAA29297@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] too late for TD? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > The SO has the right to extend the half-hour limit. Just to clarify (David knows this.), there are _two_ periods to be considered: the Appeals Period (L92B) and the Correction Period (L79C). By default, both expire 30 minutes after the scores are made available, but the SO can specify a different time for either or both. (I'm not sure what would happen if the Appeals Period is _longer_ than the Correction Period; normally it's the same or shorter.) In addition to the other comments, in the original case the TD might consider filing a "Recorder Form" if the SO/RA offer that option. And conduct penalties could be considered under a variety of laws (primarily L73C and 73B1) but would only be appropriate for very blatant cases, ones where you almost have to believe the conduct was deliberate. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 10 01:17:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e99FGkp18430 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 01:16:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e99FGft18426 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 01:16:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id pa864697 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 01:08:30 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-222-239.tmns.net.au ([203.54.222.239]) by mail5.bigpond.com (Claudes-Zippy-MailRouter V2.9c 9/3243325); 10 Oct 2000 01:08:30 Message-ID: <010201c0320b$4bfd62a0$e0e436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:09:25 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman de Wael wrote: >Come on, Grattan, >Do you know a single alerting regulation in which it is not >required to alert a bid made on a void ? In Australia, 3H is not alertable. Whenever North or South or both have bid hearts, all subsequent heart bids by EW are not alertable in Australia. >Are the words of the footnote so void "the TD is to assume >misinformation in the absense of proof to the contrary". Footnote 22 to Law 75D2 says EVIDENCE not "proof". If it said "proof", I would have expected that the two appeals between Austria and Sweden in Maastricht would both have had different outcomes (#18 and #19 IIRC). There is a big difference between evidence and proof. Exactly what that difference is, well I'm not sure. >Not alerting a bid made on a void seems an infraction to me. 1S - Pass - 4S - Pass - 4NT - Pass - 5C on QJxxx, xxxx, Qxxxx, - would not be alertable in Australia and in many other parts of the world, yet it is "a bid made on a void". 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 Oct 10 01:48:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e99FljS18464 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 01:47:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cobalt9-he.global.net.uk (cobalt9-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.169]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e99FlYt18456 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 01:47:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from p24s07a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.119.37] helo=pacific) by cobalt9-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13iGMZ-0006NB-00; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 14:19:36 +0100 Message-ID: <009201c03207$c34df580$257793c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <39E07063.3D4C55DD@village.uunet.be> <004b01c031b9$95b8c940$545408c3@dodona> <39E17E05.2F37A17A@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 15:45:03 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott ----- Original Message ----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Sent: 09 October 2000 09:12 Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp > > Not alerting a bid made ' ? ' on a void seems an infraction to me. > +=+ I would say the words 'by agreement' are essential to your statement. +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 10 01:48:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e99Fljs18465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 01:47:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cobalt9-he.global.net.uk (cobalt9-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.169]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e99FlYt18457 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 01:47:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from p24s07a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.119.37] helo=pacific) by cobalt9-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13iGMb-0006NB-00; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 14:19:37 +0100 Message-ID: <009301c03207$c4069720$257793c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" , "Grant Sterling" References: <3.0.6.32.20001009085423.007c7640@eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 16:05:06 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott ----- Original Message ----- From: Grant Sterling To: Bridge Laws Sent: 09 October 2000 14:54 Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp ------------------ \x/ ------------------- > >East explained he intended it as a cue-bid. > > Irrelevant. > +=+ I would find it wholly unsurprising if West said, on the other hand, that he intended his bid as a raise of partner's natural bid. I would fully expect that they would both say, truthfully, that they have not discussed the situation at all. I do not think a sane Director can find that they have a partnership agreement on it. +=+ > > > Respectfully, > +=+ Well, I am less sure about this. It is frequently the case that the most vociferous and vehement protests come from a player who realizes he has made an idiot of himself. I agree with the view that North has gambled freely and must stand his losses. ~ 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 Oct 10 01:56:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e99FumY18485 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 01:56:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net (scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.49]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e99Fugt18481 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 01:56:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-001kslawrP310.dialsprint.net [158.252.182.48]) by scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA03754 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 08:56:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <200010091056150310.003B4B19@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <00ac01c031ac$2f471f20$189c1e18@san.rr.com> References: <002c01c030ab$c6c64f80$189c1e18@san.rr.com> <000601c03109$2a680260$165408c3@dodona> <006a01c03156$1c9be0a0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> <200010082210300520.02E9C09C@mail.earthlink.net> <00ac01c031ac$2f471f20$189c1e18@san.rr.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.10.03.02 (3) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 10:56:15 -0500 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A pragmatic world [was ACBLLC minutes Nov 1998] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >I didn't meant to say that an international organization for a >sport/game must dictate identical rules for all countries, only >that it must be in charge. [...] Ah, I see the distinction. The national governing body for (in my example) basketball here is U.S. Basketball or some such, and it's part of the IOC and follows the rules thereof. The college and pro leagues are not affiliated with either organization and thus don't worry about international regulation. Is that right? Best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 10 02:47:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e99Gket18613 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:46:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e99Gkat18608 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:46:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id sa865376 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:43:11 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-211-102.tmns.net.au ([203.54.211.102]) by mail5.bigpond.com (Claudes-Frosty-MailRouter V2.9c 9/3252990); 10 Oct 2000 02:43:10 Message-ID: <000401c03218$8642c2e0$66d336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] too late for TD? Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 03:41:34 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > The SO has the right to extend the half-hour limit. Next weekend the Australian Swiss Pairs Championship is being held in Tasmania (an island at the southern tip of Australia). The Tasmanian organisers have extended the time limit for score corrections, which is the appropriate way to conduct such an event. In case lurkers wonder about the practical benefits of BLML, it is possible that David Stevenson's past references to the possibility of extending the time limit have had a positive influence on the main organiser who lurks on BLML. 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 Oct 10 02:47:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e99Gl2R18624 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:47:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e99Gkvt18620 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:46:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id qa865374 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:43:09 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-211-102.tmns.net.au ([203.54.211.102]) by mail5.bigpond.com (Claudes-Australian-MailRouter V2.9c 9/3252990); 10 Oct 2000 02:43:08 Message-ID: <000201c03218$84d30640$66d336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 03:19:48 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman de Wael wrote: >After the double, surely any bid should be convertible. KJ8642 - 75 KQ10876 Q6 10853 Q64 K93 West opens 2D. North doubles. East can pass to ask West to bid his major. Therefore East bids 2H to show his hearts. This is logical normal sensible bridge, enabling EW to reach their best spot rather than suffer a bad penalty. Thus in Herman's statement above, "surely" should read "maybe". Alain wrote: >> 2) he [West] clearly took it [3H] as natural Herman wrote: >Well, you are always going to believe yourself, won't you ? You've missed the point, Herman, West raised 3H to 4H. It is evident from the bidding that West treated 3H as a natural bid. Thus "evidence" exists that West thought 3H was natural. Further evidence of this is that it's only the second time that EW had played together, so they have not had the opportunity to develop an understanding about the meaning of 3H in such an obscure auction. Alain wrote: >> 3) there is no evidence that it was conventional. Herman wrote: >How about the fact that he did it ? > >"The TD is to assume misinformation rather than misbid". "in the absence of evidence...", but such evidence exists. 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 Oct 10 02:47:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e99GkmT18618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 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 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 e99Gkht18614 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:46:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ra865375 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:43:10 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-211-102.tmns.net.au ([203.54.211.102]) by mail5.bigpond.com (Claudes-Infinite-MailRouter V2.9c 9/3252990); 10 Oct 2000 02:43:09 Message-ID: <000301c03218$85688f80$66d336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 03:30:33 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman de Wael wrote: >"Why did you not bid 4 Spades ?" asks partner. > >Because I should realize that maybe opponents are >having a bidding misunderstanding !! Because East didn't double 2H, he obviously couldn't have hearts. Thus he had to have intended 3H as a cue bid of hearts because he didn't double 2H. So I thought you had hearts partner. I was too logical. >Do you really think EW deserve the top they got ? Yes. NS did a multi-meaning bid, and then NS failed to diagnose which of the multi-meanings applied, while EW broke no Laws or Regulations, and in the meantime South should have alerted 2H (unless Belgium regulations are weird enough to ask him not to do so). 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 Tue Oct 10 03:36:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e99HZuk18755 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 03:35:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e99HZot18751 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 03:35:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4dl.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.17.181]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA07608 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 13:35:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <006c01c03217$edf3fa40$b511f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 13:39:49 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk (HDW)>Come on, Grattan, >Do you know a single alerting regulation in which it is not >required to alert a bid made on a void ? In the ACBL and some other venues all cue bids are considered self alerting and are therefore non-alertable. In many other places high level cue bids (showing control not suit in slam bidding) are very basic, plain vanilla and thoroughly non-alertable. >> Is an alert required when a player does >> not know what his partner's call means? > >That is a different question, but I believe the answer is >YES. > I do not believe that it is necessary to alert that you don't know what is going on. If the bid is genuinely non-systemic, there is no agreement to alert. If it would be non-alertable if you remembered what it meant, you create UI by alerting improperly as well as MI. Only if you have forgotten an alertable bid should you (perhaps) alert...but you certainly don't know that. By the way, even if there is infraction here, isn't 5D vul a make for EW, so 5H a good sac? Is there really damage? Craig -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 10 05:09:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e99J8sL18863 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 05:08:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e99J8kt18859 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 05:08:48 +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 13iiHx-000GJg-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 19:08:42 +0000 Message-ID: <9kO+YMAEBa45EwZW@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 11:39:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp References: <39DEE392.B2FC53C4@village.uunet.be> <39E0B889.2CFBC66D@village.uunet.be> <39E17FBC.EECDEEC7@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <39E17FBC.EECDEEC7@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: >"John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: >> >> > >> >It is my opinion that north has the right to know that >> >(maybe) the EW system includes 3He as a cue. >> > >> But it seems perfectly clear to me that they had *NO* idea what the bid >> meant and I wouldn't presume to think that they have a CPU here. Nah, >> they all produced bids from various parts of the solar system, the 6th >> planet of Alpha Centauri, 2 lesser moons of the dogstar, and a bit of >> land off the coast of England. Nobody had any idea what any of them >> meant, with the exception of the opening bid perhaps. >> > >How is this possible ??? > >You John, a director, should be more sympathetic than most. > >I understand that players have no sympathy. >But you are a director. > >Suppose I were to say : > >East, a scotsman, is very surprised to see 3He not alerted. >In Scotland, that always shows a void, and he thought this >was world-wide. (No scots jokes please, nor belgian ones) > >Ruling ? > >And what is the difference here ? > >The TD is to rule misinformation barring proff to the >contrary. >Why not here ? > >By now you may have gathered that I was the unfortunate >North player. > >I found a ruling automatic, wanted to give one, and they >protested. >I found no-one in the club willing to see my point, and what >was worse, no one willing to say "Herman is an international >TD, he may well be right on this one". > >Now I believe the whole world has gone bonkers. > >Well, I've been alone before. >But I would still like to hear some voices of support. > >Why does everyone have sympathy for East-West, who butched >up a bidding, ended up in a 4-0 fit and yet were rescued ? >While no-one seems to have any sympathy for North-South, who >made not a single BAD call, and ended up -500 ? They didn't make a bad call? Oh, shame! No doubt every time a side does not make a bad call it should be sent to the official Committee for the re-adjudication of bridge results to achieve total fairness and absolutely boring bridge. Actually, I trust you are telling us fibs, because North got what he deserved for that 4S call, and I would not expect North to call the TD when no infraction has occurred. When you play a convention that deliberately aims to confuse the auction then you have no right to go crying to a TD because you have made the silly bid. You have persuaded the opponents to play in 4H because the Multi is confusing. North has then stupidly come to their rescue, and not only is his call bad, for him to complain because it goes wrong for the reason that the opponents were confused is just not fair. If you are going to ask for redress every time the Multi confuses the opponents then I think you should be barred from playing the Multi. -- 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 Oct 10 05:09:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e99J93L18869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 05:09:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e99J8vt18865 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 05:08:58 +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 13iiI5-0000rZ-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 19:08:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 11:31:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp References: <39E07063.3D4C55DD@village.uunet.be> <004b01c031b9$95b8c940$545408c3@dodona> <39E17E05.2F37A17A@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <39E17E05.2F37A17A@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: >Grattan Endicott wrote: >> >> > >> > Sorry Tim, infraction = non-alert of 3He >> > damage = 5HeX-3 >> > North is vehemently asking for a ruling. I had to give it. >> > >> +=+ Herman, I think you are asking a question >> that cannot be answered on a world-wide basis. >> We need to know about the alerting regulation >> in force. > >Come on, Grattan, >Do you know a single alerting regulation in which it is not >required to alert a bid made on a void ? 1H 2H Michaels This is not alertable in the ACBL and may be made on a void heart. 1S=4S=4NT=5C one ace This is not alertable in Belgium and may be made on a club void. >Not alerting a bid made on a void seems an infraction to me. I would rethink that sentence if I were 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 Tue Oct 10 05:27:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e99JRTH18895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 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 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 e99JRMt18891 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 05:27:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from s1.optonline.net (s1.optonline.net [167.206.112.6]) by mx1.hcvlny.cv.net (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e99JRE007731; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 15:27:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optonline.net (ool-18bc031d.dyn.optonline.net [24.188.3.29]) by s1.optonline.net (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e99JREo27798; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 15:27:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <39E21C88.3513170F@optonline.net> Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 15:29:12 -0400 From: Joshua Fendel Reply-To: jfendel@optonline.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-AOL (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Marvin L. French" CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Scoring Question References: <00c701c031ba$f7f0b7c0$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 I was directing a club game recently, when it was necessary to award an A+/A- result on a board. Using ACBLScore I noted that the non-offending pair had received 70% of the available matchpoints, since that was the average of the overall game. The offending pair was awarded only 30%, despite the fact that their overall game percentage was over 50%. My first inclination was to think that this was a mistake in the ACBLScore program. I have assumed that 12C1 meant that the non-offending pair receives 60% or more when their overall game percentage is greater, and that the offending pair receives 40% or less, if their overall game percentage is less. (12C1 specifically notes that the scores need not balance.) I have corresponded with several people in the ACBL, but today received what appear to be their definitive answer, since it comes from Gary Blaiss. I would appreciate any comments regarding the correctness of this interpretation, which gives the offending side the reciprical of the non-offending side in all cases. "Dear Josh-- One of the meanings of "at least 60% in pairs" is that when the pair issued an A+ has a game with a greater percentage they are to receive that higher percentage of the masterpoints. Therefore, one of the interpretations of "...average minus (at most 40% of the available matchpoints in pairs)...." is that they are to receive the reciprocal when they receive an A- against a pair given an A+ and the A+ turns out to be greater than 60%. This is, in my view, the correct interpretation of an A- as it makes sure that the offender is not advantaged. The ACBL Laws Commission agrees with this interpretation. gary blaiss" -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 10 05:36:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e99JZvJ18909 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 05:35:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e99JZot18905 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 05:35:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA10517 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 15:38:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200010091938.PAA10517@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <39E17FBC.EECDEEC7@village.uunet.be> References: <39DEE392.B2FC53C4@village.uunet.be> <39E0B889.2CFBC66D@village.uunet.be> <39E17FBC.EECDEEC7@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 15:38:37 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 9 October 2000 at 10:20, Herman De Wael wrote: >Suppose I were to say : > >East, a scotsman, is very surprised to see 3He not alerted. >In Scotland, that always shows a void, and he thought this >was world-wide. (No scots jokes please, nor belgian ones) > >Ruling ? > Did East do anything after 3He wasn't alerted that would be use of UI? No? No foul. East made a bid that he assumed partner would work out from bridge experience, but is definately not part of their agreements. He was wrong. However, in this case, if he assumed that this was the "standard" agreement, he might have had to explain it - after the hand - as alertable. However, if they had no agreement - and the facts that partner raised it as natural, that it wasn't alerted, the fact that they are a new partnership, and whatever notes they can supply (likely to be no more than "Simple Dixon" or the like) is definately serious evidence that they had no agreement - then there still is no recourse. Calls themselves are not Alertable. Calls based on Alertable agreements are Alertable. 3H was many things, but obviously not an agreement to show a void. >And what is the difference here ? > The difference is that East doesn't even have the expectation that partner would understand the call. >The TD is to rule misinformation barring proff to the >contrary. >Why not here ? > As others have said here, Herman, evidence, not proof. I argued, I think reasonably successfully, last year that the standard should not be raised. Is there evidence? See above. >Why does everyone have sympathy for East-West, who butched >up a bidding, ended up in a 4-0 fit and yet were rescued ? >While no-one seems to have any sympathy for North-South, who >made not a single BAD call, and ended up -500 ? > I have great sympathy for North-South. They were fixed - impressively, in fact. But East-West didn't do anything wrong. Ok, East made the torture bid to end all torture bids, and he should have paid for it. But torturing your partner isn't illegal, yet. One great tenet of BLML is "Rub of the Green". Sometimes, bad opponents luck out. Sometimes, when the opponents' bidding goes off the rails, they end up smelling like roses. Sorry. 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 Oct 10 05:49:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e99JnOw18931 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 05:49:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.146]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e99JnIt18927 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 05:49:18 +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 PAA20672; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 15:45:47 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <39E17E05.2F37A17A@village.uunet.be> References: <39E07063.3D4C55DD@village.uunet.be> <004b01c031b9$95b8c940$545408c3@dodona> <39E17E05.2F37A17A@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 15:48:09 -0400 To: Herman De Wael From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 10:12 AM +0200 10/9/00, Herman De Wael wrote: >Are the words of the footnote so void "the TD is to assume >misinformation in the absense of proof to the contrary". The footnote doesn't say that. It says "evidence". 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/AwUBOeIhOb2UW3au93vOEQKixQCg5Fh/W+n+obTF1q0FjVjr1rzjJmoAn32W EKSR81paUVeQ5e4H3Z6e8/YM =C6os -----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 Oct 10 06:27:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e99KQRu18968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 06:26:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e99KQLt18964 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 06:26:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA14638; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 13:26:16 -0700 Message-Id: <200010092026.NAA14638@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Question In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 09 Oct 2000 15:29:12 PDT." <39E21C88.3513170F@optonline.net> Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 13:26:17 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Joshua Fendel wrote: > I was directing a club game recently, when it was necessary to award an > A+/A- result on a board. Using ACBLScore I noted that the non-offending > pair had received 70% of the available matchpoints, since that was the > average of the overall game. The offending pair was awarded only 30%, > despite the fact that their overall game percentage was over 50%. My first > inclination was to think that this was a mistake in the ACBLScore program. > I have assumed that 12C1 meant that the non-offending pair receives 60% or > more when their overall game percentage is greater, and that the offending > pair receives 40% or less, if their overall game percentage is less. (12C1 > specifically notes that the scores need not balance.) > I have corresponded with several people in the ACBL, but today received what > appear to be their definitive answer, since it comes from Gary Blaiss. I > would appreciate any comments regarding the correctness of this > interpretation, which gives the offending side the reciprical of the > non-offending side in all cases. > > "Dear Josh-- > > One of the meanings of "at least 60% in pairs" is that when the pair issued > an A+ has a game with a greater percentage they are to receive that higher > percentage of the masterpoints. > > Therefore, one of the interpretations of "...average minus (at most 40% of > the available matchpoints in pairs)...." is that they are to receive the > reciprocal when they receive an A- against a pair given an A+ and the A+ > turns out to be greater than 60%. > > This is, in my view, the correct interpretation of an A- as it makes sure > that the offender is not advantaged. The ACBL Laws Commission agrees with > this interpretation. > > gary blaiss" I agree with Mr. Blaiss in that this is a possible interpretation (I don't make any judgment as to whether it's the correct one). There's nothing in the Laws that says that a contestant who gets average-minus at matchpoints gets 40%. Law 12C1 says: When, owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained, the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity: average minus ( at most 40% of the available matchpoints in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault; average (50% in pairs) to a contestant only partially at fault; average plus (at least 60% in pairs ) to a contestant in no way at fault (see Law 86 for team play or Law 88 for pairs play). The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance. Note that it just says "at most 40%". Note that nowhere in the Laws does it say how to compute the correct percentage, i.e. it doesn't say when an A- is supposed to be 40% and when it's supposed to be less. Law 88 tells you how to compute an A+ (although the wording is clunky and there have been disputes here about its meaning), but there's no similar Law telling you how to compute an A-. (On the other hand, at IMPs, Law 86 does tell you what to give someone who gets an A-.) Furthermore, Law 12C1 says, at the end, "The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance." Putting this all together, I have to conclude that at matchpoints, the Laws allow you to assign any score you want for an A-, as long as it's no greater than 40%. You could give them a zero if you wish. The Laws give us no guidance on the matter. So this would mean that the ACBLLC's interpretation is within the Laws. I don't understand Mr. Blaiss' last paragraph, especially the part about "making sure that the offender is not advantaged". I don't see how giving an offender 40% when his opponents are having a 65% game is in any way advantageous to the offender. -- 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 Oct 10 07:10:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e99LA0J19011 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 07:10:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e99L9st19007 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 07:09:54 +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 RAA25762 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 17:09:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA29658 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 17:09:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 17:09:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200010092109.RAA29658@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Question X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > I don't understand Mr. Blaiss' last paragraph, especially the part > about "making sure that the offender is not advantaged". I don't see > how giving an offender 40% when his opponents are having a 65% game is > in any way advantageous to the offender. Oh, Adam. You just don't think like a villain. Suppose an average pair find that their next opponents are, say, Meckwell. (They should have arranged to sit at Table 11!) Isn't it conceivable that they could improve their score by fouling both boards and taking 40%? The ACBL avoids that by giving them the complement of Meckwell's score (a score that might well be better than 65% in a session where average players are in the field). The WBF has followed a different approach since Lille, one that seems to me to have less clear justification. Now that I think about it, I'm not sure whether the Lille directive was supposed to apply to WBF events only or to all Duplicate Contract Bridge. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 10 07:52:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e99LpKf19043 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 07:51:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e99LpEt19039 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 07:51:15 +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; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 14:51:31 -0700 Message-ID: <006b01c0323a$e34955e0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: , Cc: References: <00c701c031ba$f7f0b7c0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> <39E21C88.3513170F@optonline.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Question Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 14:41:37 -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 Josh, thanks for forwarding this to us. Gary is correct that this is the procedure specified by the ACBLLC, reaffirmed at its Orlando meeting of November 1998. The reaffirmation was a deliberate rejection of what the WBFLC decided in its earlier 1998 meeting at Lille. This was item #4 in the Lille summary provided by Grattan Endicott: "Having debated the options, the Committee held that 'average minus' means the player's session percentage or 40%, whichever is lower." They meant the session percentage on other boards, not including the one in question. No recursive routine necessary. Which opinion you consider legal depends on your point of view. The WBFLC has the sole authority to interpret the Laws, so I maintain that any conflicting ACBLLC interpretation is illegal. Within the fenced-in and insulated world of the ACBL, however, it is legal to let the non-offenders' score on other boards determine what the offenders A- should be. The logic for this interpretation escapes me. There is an opinion held by some that the total number of available matchpoints should be the same for the N/S and E/W fields. Adjustments that do not add to 100% of the points available on a board violate this principle. However, L12C1 specifically says that artificial adjustments for each side need not balance, so the principle is not derived from the Laws. The total WBFLC interpretation for L12C1 makes more sense. The NOs get 60% or their percentage on other boards in the session, whichever is better. The OS gets 40% or their percentage on other boards or their percentage on other boards in the session, whichever is worse. Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, USA > I was directing a club game recently, when it was necessary to award an > A+/A- result on a board. Using ACBLScore I noted that the non-offending > pair had received 70% of the available matchpoints, since that was the > average of the overall game. The offending pair was awarded only 30%, > despite the fact that their overall game percentage was over 50%. My first > inclination was to think that this was a mistake in the ACBLScore program. > I have assumed that 12C1 meant that the non-offending pair receives 60% or > more when their overall game percentage is greater, and that the offending > pair receives 40% or less, if their overall game percentage is less. (12C1 > specifically notes that the scores need not balance.) > I have corresponded with several people in the ACBL, but today received what > appear to be their definitive answer, since it comes from Gary Blaiss. I > would appreciate any comments regarding the correctness of this > interpretation, which gives the offending side the reciprocal of the > non-offending side in all cases. > > "Dear Josh-- > > One of the meanings of "at least 60% in pairs" is that when the pair issued > an A+ has a game with a greater percentage they are to receive that higher > percentage of the masterpoints. > > Therefore, one of the interpretations of "...average minus (at most 40% of > the available matchpoints in pairs)...." is that they are to receive the > reciprocal when they receive an A- against a pair given an A+ and the A+ > turns out to be greater than 60%. > > This is, in my view, the correct interpretation of an A- as it makes sure > that the offender is not advantaged. The ACBL Laws Commission agrees with > this interpretation. > > gary blaiss" > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Oct 10 07:56:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e99LuMB19059 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 07:56:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (root@smtp1.ihug.co.nz [203.109.252.7]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e99LuGt19055 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 07:56:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from tripack.ihug.co.nz (p629-apx1.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.194.121]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with ESMTP id KAA27701 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:56:12 +1300 X-Authentication-Warning: smtp1.ihug.co.nz: Host p629-apx1.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.194.121] claimed to be tripack.ihug.co.nz Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20001010101725.00b12430@pop.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: tripack@pop.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:53:26 +1300 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Patrick Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp 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: When you play a convention that deliberately aims to confuse the auction then you have no right to go crying to a TD because you have made the silly bid. You have persuaded the opponents to play in 4H because the Multi is confusing. I take exception to this tone David. It is understood that it is occasionally true that the Multi results in a confusing auction, although I would argue that at the intermediate level and above, where the convention is permitted in New Zealand, that a low percentage of Multi auctions would end up 'confused'. However to say that the convention deliberately aims to confuse casts unwarranted aspersions on the motives of Multi users. I personally play the Multi as: a) 6 card weak 2 in hearts b) 6 card weak 2 in spades c) 20-a poorish 21 points balanced This allows me to use the openings of 2H and 2S as being specifically 5 card weak twos, and 2NT as 21-22 balanced. Clearly I am playing the Multi to give more definition to the bidding of strong balanced hands and to give me more opportunity to open the bidding when I hold a weak hand with a major, whether that major is 5 or 6 cards long. I would be delighted if I could be allowed to open the bidding with 2D and immediately announce to the table whether this was option a), b) or c). This would obviously eliminate the confusion for the opponents and still allow me those extra options in the bidding that are the reason I use the Multi. Obviously I know that no bridge organisation is going to come up with that regulation, but my motives in using the Multi should be afforded more respect than David is according them. Users of the Multi no more AIM to confuse than 5 card Major, better minor, players AIM to confuse when they open 1D and the opponents find it difficult to reach their par contract in diamonds. Finally, to get down Herman's case. 1) Director convinced the partnership had not discussed this situation. 2) No discussion = no agreement 3) No agreement = no alert required 4) No alert required = no reason for N/S to claim damage by failure to alert. Were E/W lucky? Yes they were, but players are entitled to be lucky and receive totally unjustified good boards. Did N/S deserve their bad board? Don't know, but irrelevant. Patrick Carter Auckland NEW ZEALAND -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 10 08:06:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e99M4pa19080 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 08:04:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e99M4it19076 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 08:04:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.121] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13il2G-000FyP-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 09 Oct 2000 23:04:41 +0100 Message-ID: <005c01c0323d$1fc0d960$795408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: <00c701c031ba$f7f0b7c0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> <39E21C88.3513170F@optonline.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Question Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 23:03:31 +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 " The weak have one weapon: the errors of those who think they are strong." - Georges Bidault ----- Original Message ----- From: Joshua Fendel To: Marvin L. French Cc: Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 8:29 PM Subject: [BLML] Scoring Question > Therefore, one of the interpretations of "...average minus (at most 40% of > the available matchpoints in pairs)...." is that they are to receive the > reciprocal when they receive an A- against a pair given an A+ and the A+ > turns out to be greater than 60%. > > This is, in my view, the correct interpretation of an A- as it makes sure > that the offender is not advantaged. The ACBL Laws Commission agrees with > this interpretation. > > gary blaiss" > +=+ I would not wish to comment upon the ACBL's internal affairs. They are matters for the ACBL. The WBF's official interpretation of 'average minus' is that it is (and I quote) "the player's session percentage or 40%, whichever is the lower". It is not agreed by the WBF that it is affected at all by the score allotted to the opponent; and please note that Law 12C1 states in terms that "the scores awarded to the two sides need not balance". A requirement that they *must* balance is contrary to the laws of the game. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 10 08:40:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e99Md7Y19130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 08:39:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e99Md1t19126 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 08:39:02 +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 ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 15:39:19 -0700 Message-ID: <010d01c03241$9108a5e0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <006c01c03217$edf3fa40$b511f7a5@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 15:30:15 -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: "Craig Senior" wrote: > > In the ACBL and some other venues all cue bids are considered self alerting > and are therefore non-alertable. In many other places high level cue bids > (showing control not suit in slam bidding) are very basic, plain vanilla and > thoroughly non-alertable. > Not quite right, Craig. >From page 7 of 16 of the Alert Procedure (summarized) Most cue bids are not Alertable, with two exceptions (one might say three): 1. The cue bid is a natural bid in a suit that was bid naturally by an opponent. If the bid was merely shown, not actually bid, a natural bid in the suit is not Alertable, e.g., a natural bid in a major after a 2D opening that shows 4=5 in the majors. 2. The bid has a very unusual or unexpected meaning. I believe the ACBL considers that a natural bid in a suit that was bid artificially by an opponent is not a cue bid. Whatever, it's not Alertable. I can find no use of the term "self-Alerting" in the Alert Procedure, and I doubt that the ACBL uses it anywhere else. A call is either Alertable or it is not Alertable, period. 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 Oct 10 09:10:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e99N9WR19178 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 09:09:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e99N9Qt19174 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 09:09:27 +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 ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 16:09:42 -0700 Message-ID: <011b01c03245$cfa4f340$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200010092109.RAA29658@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Question Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 16:02:35 -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 Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Adam Beneschan > > I don't understand Mr. Blaiss' last paragraph, especially the part > > about "making sure that the offender is not advantaged". I don't see > > how giving an offender 40% when his opponents are having a 65% game is > > in any way advantageous to the offender. > > Oh, Adam. You just don't think like a villain. > > Suppose an average pair find that their next opponents are, say, > Meckwell. (They should have arranged to sit at Table 11!) Explain that please, I don't get it. Meckwell is at Table 3. Are you assuming a skip after 8 rounds of a 16-table game? > Isn't it > conceivable that they could improve their score by fouling both boards > and taking 40%? The ACBL avoids that by giving them the complement of > Meckwell's score (a score that might well be better than 65% in a > session where average players are in the field). Oh, Steve. Interpreting the Laws in a way aimed at foiling cheaters is an exercise in futility. It punishes all the pairs (99.99%) who would not think of doing something like this, by making their avg- score dependent on the irrelevant performance of their opponents on other boards. While "making sure that the offender is not advantaged," it makes sure that the vast majority of offenders whose opponents have a good game are disadvantaged. > > The WBF has followed a different approach since Lille, one that seems > to me to have less clear justification. Now that I think about it, I'm > not sure whether the Lille directive was supposed to apply to WBF > events only or to all Duplicate Contract Bridge. You're sounding like a candidate for appointment to the ACBLLC. Of course the Lille interpretations were offical interpretations of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge for everyone, not just for the WBF. Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, USA Gone to Fresno Regional 10/10 thru 10/15 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 10 09:12:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e99NC3919195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 09:12:04 +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 e99NBvt19191 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 09:11:58 +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 QAA18976; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 16:11:52 -0700 Message-Id: <200010092311.QAA18976@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Question In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 09 Oct 2000 14:41:37 PDT." <006b01c0323a$e34955e0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 16:11:53 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marv wrote: > The logic for this interpretation escapes me. There is an opinion > held by some that the total number of available matchpoints should > be the same for the N/S and E/W fields. Adjustments that do not add > to 100% of the points available on a board violate this principle. This prinicple doesn't work anyway. If a board is unplayable because one of the players heard a loud discussion of the hand being conducted by some third party (this has happened to me), both sides get A+. So this "principle" is actually hogwash. -- 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 Oct 10 09:26:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e99NQYx19216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 09:26:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e99NQSt19212 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 09:26:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA19365; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 16:26:24 -0700 Message-Id: <200010092326.QAA19365@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "bridge-laws" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Question In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 09 Oct 2000 23:03:31 PDT." <005c01c0323d$1fc0d960$795408c3@dodona> Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 16:26:25 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > . . . and please note > that Law 12C1 states in terms that "the scores > awarded to the two sides need not balance". A > requirement that they *must* balance is contrary > to the laws of the game. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ As a pedagogical nitpick, I have to dispute this line of reasoning. Suppose I instructed you to distribute a large number of jellybeans among some number of people. I tell you, "You can give any number of jellybeans to anyone, for whatever reason you want, and the number of jellybeans each person gets need not be equal." You then proceed to give everyone an equal number of jellybeans. Have you violated my instructions? No, of course not. I didn't tell you "Don't give everyone an equal number of jellybeans." I told you that you're not *required* to do so, but I also didn't prohibit you from doing so, and I didn't put any restrictions on any method of distribution you might choose. The Laws (excluding, for my present purpose, the official WBF interpretation) don't tell us how to assign an A- at matchpoints; the Laws say the scores don't have to balance, but they don't say "don't make a rule saying the scores have to balance." The Laws, by the absence of specificity, pretty much give SO's leeway to use whatever formula they wish for determining the score for an A-. So it really isn't contrary to the Laws, as written, for the ACBL to require that the scores must balance. Of course, since there is a WBF interpretation, this point is entirely moot. My intent here is to make a general observation about how we approach the interpretation of this type of linguistic construct. -- 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 Oct 10 09:29:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e99NTTh19231 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 09:29:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e99NTNt19227 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 09:29:23 +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 QAA19493; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 16:29:18 -0700 Message-Id: <200010092329.QAA19493@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 09 Oct 2000 15:30:15 PDT." <010d01c03241$9108a5e0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 16:29:20 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marv wrote: > I can find no use of the term "self-Alerting" in the Alert > Procedure, and I doubt that the ACBL uses it anywhere else. A call > is either Alertable or it is not Alertable, period. The term isn't in the Alert procedure, but it has been used in ACBL articles that explain their reasons why they wrote the Alert rules the way they did. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 10 10:31:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9A0SAV19291 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:28:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9A0S3t19286 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:28:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13inGw-000Cns-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 00:27:58 +0000 Message-ID: <$ESK1uAJFm45Ewb2@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 01:22:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp References: <39DEE392.B2FC53C4@village.uunet.be> <39E0B889.2CFBC66D@village.uunet.be> <39E17FBC.EECDEEC7@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <39E17FBC.EECDEEC7@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <39E17FBC.EECDEEC7@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >"John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: >> >> > >> >It is my opinion that north has the right to know that >> >(maybe) the EW system includes 3He as a cue. >> > >> But it seems perfectly clear to me that they had *NO* idea what the bid >> meant and I wouldn't presume to think that they have a CPU here. Nah, >> they all produced bids from various parts of the solar system, the 6th >> planet of Alpha Centauri, 2 lesser moons of the dogstar, and a bit of >> land off the coast of England. Nobody had any idea what any of them >> meant, with the exception of the opening bid perhaps. >> > >How is this possible ??? > >You John, a director, should be more sympathetic than most. > I'd buy NS a beer after the game (or tell EW to perhaps) but that's as far as my sympathy goes. "Herman you just been fixed" I might say. I find it very hard to work up sympathy for a player who calls me over to say "My opponents psyched/misbid and I got a poor score". "Yes, so they did", I'll say. "... and ...", I'll say. "Thanks for letting me know", I'll say. "*Ladies and Gentlemen*, let's all weep for Herman because he got fixed by a clueless pair at his table", I won't say, but I'd probably think it if you tried to pursue the matter much further. >I understand that players have no sympathy. >But you are a director. > >Suppose I were to say : > >East, a scotsman, is very surprised to see 3He not alerted. >In Scotland, that always shows a void, and he thought this >was world-wide. (No scots jokes please, nor belgian ones) > I think we're in the position that east thinks that there is a partnership agreement (I played a whole session with a lady who played Standard American and only found out on the last board that 2H was Natural Strong and Forcing when I wound up in 6Hx - 4). The fact that East thinks the whole world knows that he has shown a void doesn't alter the fact that *actually* there is *no* agreement, just as I spent a whole evening believing that Standard American has weak 2's, and we had *no agreement*. This is rub of the green I believe. It's a fairly classic psyche at the Young Chelsea to overcall the multi with a singleton, and get the opponents to play in the wrong suit. I've seen it, done it, and washed the t-shirt. It doesn't always work but it's got quite good expectation. >Ruling ? > >And what is the difference here ? > >The TD is to rule misinformation barring proff to the >contrary. >Why not here ? > >By now you may have gathered that I was the unfortunate >North player. > >I found a ruling automatic, wanted to give one, and they >protested. >I found no-one in the club willing to see my point, and what >was worse, no one willing to say "Herman is an international >TD, he may well be right on this one". > >Now I believe the whole world has gone bonkers. > >Well, I've been alone before. >But I would still like to hear some voices of support. > >Why does everyone have sympathy for East-West, who butched >up a bidding, ended up in a 4-0 fit and yet were rescued ? >While no-one seems to have any sympathy for North-South, who >made not a single BAD call, and ended up -500 ? > Of course I've got sympathy for N/S who were more sinned against than sinning, but I see no evidence of MI or UI on which to base an adjustment. > -- 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 Oct 10 10:31:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9A0SGB19295 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:28:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9A0S6t19288 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:28:07 +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 13inGz-000Dus-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 00:28:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 01:09:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] too late for TD? References: <000401c03218$8642c2e0$66d336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <000401c03218$8642c2e0$66d336cb@gillp.bigpond.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 <000401c03218$8642c2e0$66d336cb@gillp.bigpond.com>, Peter Gill writes >David Stevenson wrote: >> The SO has the right to extend the half-hour limit. > >Next weekend the Australian Swiss Pairs Championship >is being held in Tasmania (an island at the southern tip of >Australia). The Tasmanian organisers have extended the >time limit for score corrections, which is the appropriate >way to conduct such an event. > >In case lurkers wonder about the practical benefits of BLML, >it is possible that David Stevenson's past references to the >possibility of extending the time limit have had a positive >influence on the main organiser who lurks on BLML. > >Peter Gill >Australia The Japanese Ladies game permits score corrections (where I have mis- entered a score) up until the start of play the following week. They all keep their scorecards and personal score printouts and chew the hands to death during the week I think. Scores incorrectly entered on the traveller are only correctable until I turn off the computer after the game (which gives them 10 minutes to check their personal score). This works well, and is not unreasonable for a weekly game. 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 Oct 10 10:33:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9A0VDX19321 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:31:13 +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 e9A0V5t19317 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:31:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.14] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13inJr-000ILs-00; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 01:31:00 +0100 Message-ID: <002101c03251$903b0260$0e5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Thomas Dehn" , , "alain gottcheiner" References: <3.0.6.32.20001009124938.008adcb0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: [BLML] Meaningless? - was Definitions: Convention Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 01:08:00 +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 " The weak have one weapon: the errors of those who think they are strong." - Georges Bidault > ----- Original Message ----- From: alain gottcheiner To: Thomas Dehn ; Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 11:49 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions: Convention > At 11:48 7/10/00 +0200, you wrote: > > > >"0-37 HCP, any distribution" is a meaning, too. > > AG : no, it's not. According to the principles of information theory, any > information that doesn't restrict the range of possibilities is no > information at all ; in shorter words it doesn't exist. Since many systems > are based on this theory, you can't gainsay it is compatible with bridge. > +=+ Thus it seems we are invited to determine that some calls have 'no meaning' and therefore are neither 'not conventional', as defined, nor yet again 'conventional'. Yet some grammarians might argue that there is no condition in which a call which is not the one can be anything but the other. And if the logic calls for what may not be held 'not conventional' to be 'conventional' we must consider the possibility that the law is written on the basis that every call has a meaning. So we turn to the meaning of 'meaning'; posts to this list have tended to regard 'meaning' as necessarily introducing fresh content to the sum of knowledge, whereas it can indeed convey the meaning that the caller has nothing he desires to add to what is already in evidence. One mainstream meaning of the word 'meaning' is given in the dictionary as "That which is intended to be, or actually is, indicated" - extended by the added explanations "the signification, sense, import". So I would suggest that, for example, those situations where a given call is 'forced', and the player makes none other, bear the import that he has no other that he chooses to exercise his freedom in law to make (which responds to the criterion that it should restrict the range of possibilities. But how did the word 'information' creep in here? - we are discussing meaning not information.) Now is that not a meaningful passage? ~ 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 Oct 10 10:50:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9A0oUI19352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:50:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (root@smtp1.ihug.co.nz [203.109.252.7]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9A0oMt19348 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:50:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from tripack.ihug.co.nz (p216-tnt1.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.218.216]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with ESMTP id NAA18217 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:50:18 +1300 X-Authentication-Warning: smtp1.ihug.co.nz: Host p216-tnt1.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.218.216] claimed to be tripack.ihug.co.nz Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20001010133651.00b15500@pop.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: tripack@pop.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:47:05 +1300 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Patrick Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Question Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The WBF's official interpretation of 'average minus' is that it is (and I quote) "the player's session percentage or 40%, whichever is the lower". It is not agreed by the WBF that it is affected at all by the score allotted to the opponent; and please note that Law 12C1 states in terms that "the scores awarded to the two sides need not balance". A requirement that they *must* balance is contrary to the laws of the game. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I'm afraid I can't see the point of all this. Do you actually want to find the pair concerned and advise them that as they only had a 38% overall score that you will now be awarding them a 38% adjusted score instead of 40%? Do you think they will be the slightest bit interested in your precious adjustment? Do you think there is some point to this that justifies needlessly irritating players that we want to encourage to continue enjoying to play this great game of ours? The ONLY time this might make some sort of difference is when the pair concerned is playing in a tournament of several sessions and does very well in most sessions but very poorly in another AND in the session they did poorly they had a 40% score. e.g. 65%, 65% and 38% (including a 40% adjustment) In such a case don't you think that such a pair has shown they are not really 40% players? Patrick Carter Auckland NEW ZEALAND -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 10 10:54:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9A0sCK19366 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:54:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9A0s6t19362 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:54:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.211] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13ingA-000IeA-00; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 01:54:02 +0100 Message-ID: <004301c03254$c8825440$0e5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: References: <200010092326.QAA19365@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Question Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 01:52:19 +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 " The weak have one weapon: the errors of those who think they are strong." - Georges Bidault ----- Original Message ----- From: Adam Beneschan To: bridge-laws Cc: Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 12:26 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Question > > The Laws (excluding, for my present purpose, the official WBF > interpretation) don't tell us how to assign an A- at matchpoints; the > Laws say the scores don't have to balance, but they don't say "don't > make a rule saying the scores have to balance." The Laws, by the > absence of specificity, pretty much give SO's leeway to use whatever > formula they wish for determining the score for an A-. So it really > isn't contrary to the Laws, as written, for the ACBL to require that > the scores must balance. > +=+ Except of course that a Director who disregards such a requirement is supported by the overriding authority of the laws of the game. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 10 11:19:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9A1IuN19399 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 11:18:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9A1Int19395 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 11:18:49 +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 VAA22630 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 21:14:56 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200010092326.QAA19365@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200010092326.QAA19365@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 21:16:16 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Question Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 4:26 PM -0700 10/9/00, Adam Beneschan wrote: >The Laws (excluding, for my present purpose, the official WBF >interpretation) don't tell us how to assign an A- at matchpoints; the >Laws say the scores don't have to balance, but they don't say "don't >make a rule saying the scores have to balance." The Laws, by the >absence of specificity, pretty much give SO's leeway to use whatever >formula they wish for determining the score for an A-. So it really >isn't contrary to the Laws, as written, for the ACBL to require that >the scores must balance. > >Of course, since there is a WBF interpretation, this point is entirely >moot. My intent here is to make a general observation about how we >approach the interpretation of this type of linguistic construct. The laws give the TD authority to award artificial adjusted scores that do not balance. To make a regulation which precludes the TD from doing so *is* contrary to the laws. In particular, it violates Law 80F, which states that an SO may make regulations "supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws." 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/AwUBOeJudb2UW3au93vOEQLvBACgmO3dsOitQWAPIZbOyTgWN8EaCWcAn3CE YLSGOXQCUpTUrVmpCLApWePM =iNCx -----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 Oct 10 11:53:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9A1qQJ19425 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 11:52:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9A1qKt19421 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 11:52:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from s1.optonline.net (s1.optonline.net [167.206.112.6]) by mx1.hcvlny.cv.net (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9A1qH001046 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 21:52:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optonline.net (ool-18bc031d.dyn.optonline.net [24.188.3.29]) by s1.optonline.net (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9A1qHo21302 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 21:52:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <39E276C4.9E3B5036@optonline.net> Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 21:54:12 -0400 From: Joshua Fendel Reply-To: jfendel@optonline.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-AOL (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Question References: <200010092026.NAA14638@mailhub.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk If someone has the source for the position attributed to the WBF which is contrary to the one I received from the ACBL I would appreciate it if they could send it on to me. Josh Fendel -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 10 11:53:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9A1rjq19438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 11:53:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (mta02-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.42]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9A1rdt19434 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 11:53:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.8.72]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20001010025220.ZNDI23965.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:52:20 +0000 Message-ID: <003b01c0325d$2d2dd6a0$4808ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne.jones1" To: "BLML" References: <000401c03218$8642c2e0$66d336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] too late for TD? Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:55:32 +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: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 1:09 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] too late for TD? > In article <000401c03218$8642c2e0$66d336cb@gillp.bigpond.com>, Peter > Gill writes > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> The SO has the right to extend the half-hour limit. > > > >Next weekend the Australian Swiss Pairs Championship > >is being held in Tasmania (an island at the southern tip of > >Australia). The Tasmanian organisers have extended the > >time limit for score corrections, which is the appropriate > >way to conduct such an event. > > > >In case lurkers wonder about the practical benefits of BLML, > >it is possible that David Stevenson's past references to the > >possibility of extending the time limit have had a positive > >influence on the main organiser who lurks on BLML. > > > >Peter Gill > >Australia > > The Japanese Ladies game permits score corrections (where I have mis- > entered a score) up until the start of play the following week. They all > keep their scorecards and personal score printouts and chew the hands to > death during the week I think. Scores incorrectly entered on the > traveller are only correctable until I turn off the computer after the > game (which gives them 10 minutes to check their personal score). > > This works well, and is not unreasonable for a weekly game. > This is the practice in the Welsh clubs that have scoring on site, and as you say John, it works well.Clubs that do not produce a result on the night have a correction period that extends to the beginning of the next duplicate on the same night, one week later. Perfectly acceptable. BUT, the end of the correction period is the end of the discussion!! 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 Oct 10 13:08:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9A37jX19498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:07:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f287.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9A37dt19494 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:07:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 20:07:32 -0700 Received: from 172.141.247.33 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 03:07:31 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.141.247.33] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Meaningless? - was Definitions: Convention Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 20:07:31 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Oct 2000 03:07:32.0107 (UTC) FILETIME=[3B1BC5B0:01C03267] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Grattan Endicott" >+=+ Thus it seems we are invited to determine >that some calls have 'no meaning' and therefore are >neither 'not conventional', as defined, nor yet again >'conventional'. Yet some grammarians might argue >that there is no condition in which a call which is >not the one can be anything but the other. > And if the logic calls for what may not be held >'not conventional' to be 'conventional' we must >consider the possibility that the law is written >on the basis that every call has a meaning. So we >turn to the meaning of 'meaning'; posts to this list >have tended to regard 'meaning' as necessarily >introducing fresh content to the sum of knowledge, >whereas it can indeed convey the meaning that the >caller has nothing he desires to add to what is >already in evidence. One mainstream meaning of >the word 'meaning' is given in the dictionary as >"That which is intended to be, or actually is, >indicated" - extended by the added explanations >"the signification, sense, import". So I would >suggest that, for example, those situations where >a given call is 'forced', and the player makes none >other, bear the import that he has no other that >he chooses to exercise his freedom in law to >make His ability in law to make another call has no bearing. His freedom according to the system he plays does. >(which responds to the criterion that it >should restrict the range of possibilities. But how >did the word 'information' creep in here? - we >are discussing meaning not information.) > Now is that not a meaningful passage? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ It is based on the assumption that the caller has other options at his disposal which do carry meaning. 3C over lebensohl 2NT does not even imply that the bidder has no information he would like to add. Rather, he has no choice. 2D over a strong 2C, however, would fall prey to this line of thought eventhough it may not necessarily deny the ability to have made a different call. -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 Oct 10 14:23:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9A4Mdk19552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:22:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9A4MXt19548 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:22:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e99LVgU01124; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 21:31:42 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Adam Beneschan , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Question Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 21:19:27 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200010092311.QAA18976@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200010092311.QAA18976@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00100921314203.01094@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 09 Oct 2000, Adam Beneschan wrote: > Marv wrote: > > > The logic for this interpretation escapes me. There is an opinion > > held by some that the total number of available matchpoints should > > be the same for the N/S and E/W fields. Adjustments that do not add > > to 100% of the points available on a board violate this principle. > > This prinicple doesn't work anyway. If a board is unplayable because > one of the players heard a loud discussion of the hand being conducted > by some third party (this has happened to me), both sides get A+. So > this "principle" is actually hogwash. The principle still applies to all boards on which the result is caused by the actions of the players at the table. It is not fair to the field if N-S and E-W at Table 1 can do something to give themselves, a higher combined average on Board 1 than any other N-S and E-W do. Violating this principle is a slight unfairness to the field, and therefore it should be violated only to prevent a greater unfairness to N-S and E-W at Table 1. If a third party makes the board unplayable, both sides get A+. If the TD fouls up a ruling, both sides are treated as non-offenders for the resulting adjusted score, which may be +420/+50. If the board is fouled at the next table, there is nothing to compare scores with, and both pairs get 60%. In all three cases, neither pair was at fault, and neither pair should have its chance of winning reduced by awarding an average board. However, the principle should be honored (and is not) when the form of scoring is not zero-sum. In games scored by Butler IMPs, the average IMPs on a board may be +2 for N-S. If not all N-S pairs play this board, or if N-S and E-W scores are combined for overall rankings, then N-S pairs who played this board have an advantage -- 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 Tue Oct 10 14:37:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9A4bmF19567 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:37:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9A4bft19563 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:37:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcauh55.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.68.165]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA32114; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 00:37:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001801c03273$69385060$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: Cc: References: <200010092026.NAA14638@mailhub.irvine.com> <39E276C4.9E3B5036@optonline.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Question Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 00:34:42 -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 Josh, David Stevenson has extracts from the WBFLC minutes at Lille posted on his homepage at the URL below: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/law_llle.htm The interpretation of A-, which differs from the response you received from the ACBL, is item 4. Regards, Hirsch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joshua Fendel" Cc: Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 9:54 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Question > If someone has the source for the position attributed to the WBF which is contrary > to the one I received from the ACBL I would appreciate it if they could send it on > to me. > Josh Fendel > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 10 15:24:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9A5NcC19611 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:23:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9A5NVt19607 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:23:32 +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; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 22:23:45 -0700 Message-ID: <015e01c0327a$12177520$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <200010092026.NAA14638@mailhub.irvine.com> <39E276C4.9E3B5036@optonline.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Question Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 22:17:49 -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 Josh Fendel wrote: > If someone has the source for the position attributed to the WBF which is contrary > to the one I received from the ACBL I would appreciate it if they could send it on > to me. > > I thought I cited the source: World Bridge Federation Laws Committee (WBFLC) minutes of its meeting in Lille, France, 1998, with extracts relating to new interpretations of the Laws provided by Grattan Endicott, secretary of the WBFLC Extract 4: "Consideration was given to the meaning of 'average minus' where used in Law L12C1. Having debated the options, the Committee held that 'average minus' means the player's session percentage or 40%, whichever is less." The ACBL's policy of subtracting the non-offenders' award from 100% and giving the difference to the offenders is contrary to this interpretation. The ACBLLC's interpretation governs because the WBF Constitution and By-Laws, to which the ACBL is signatory, states that the WBFLC interprets the Laws. If you are thinking of correcting Gary Blaiss by citing this source, forget it. The ACBL does not recognize the WBFLC's dominion over interpretation of the Laws. A web page on David Stevenson's Web site: www.blakjak.demon.co.uk provides all the extracts from the Lille minutes. As an aside, after reading what Adam Beneschan wrote, I think that this a matter of implementation, not of interpretation. The WBFLC should not be concerned with how anyone implements L12C1 as long as there is no conflict with its words. Average minus does not *mean* anything more than what L12C1 says it means ("at most 40%"). Whether an award less than 40% should sometimes be awarded, or whether awards should balance (although they need not), is a regulatory matter to be decided at a lower level than the WBFLC, except for WBF events. Let the WBFLC change the Law if their "interpretation" is to be cast in concrete for everyone. Admittedly it is difficult to say where the line should be drawn between interpretation and implementation, but I think the WBFLC crossed the line in this matter, as they did when saying that violating L20F1 is a minor infraction that should not normally attract a penalty. That's implementation, not interpretation. In no way am I defending the ACBLLC's strange implementation of L12C1. Marv mlfrench@writeme.com Off to Fresno Regional thru 10/10 -- ======================================================================== (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 Tue Oct 10 15:30:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9A5UaR19635 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:30:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from acsys.anu.edu.au (acsys [150.203.20.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9A5UWt19631 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:30:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from accordion (accordion.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.58]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA15570 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:30:32 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.20001010163041.00f03060@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:30:42 +1100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (by way of Markus Buchhorn ) Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Question Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [Majordomo getting overzealous in blocking stuff again -Markus] >From: "Marvin L. French" >To: >Cc: Josh Fendel wrote: > If someone has the source for the position attributed to the WBF which is contrary > to the one I received from the ACBL I would appreciate it if they could send it on > to me. > > I thought I cited the source: World Bridge Federation Laws Committee (WBFLC)minutes of its meeting in Lille, France, 1998, with extracts relating to new interpretations of the Laws provided by Grattan Endicott, secretary of the WBFLC. Extract 4: "Consideration was given to the meaning of 'average minus' where used in Law L12C1. Having debated the options, the Committee held that 'average minus' means the player's session percentage or 40%, whichever is less." The ACBL's policy of subtracting the non-offenders' award from 100% and giving the difference to the offenders is contrary to this interpretation. The ACBLLC's interpretation governs because the WBF Constitution and By-Laws, to which the ACBL is signatory, states that the WBFLC interprets the Laws. If you are thinking of correcting Gary Blaiss by citing this source, forget it. The ACBL does not recognize the WBFLC's dominion over interpretation of the Laws. A web page on David Stevenson's Web site: www.blakjak.demon.co.uk provides all the extracts from the Lille minutes. As an aside, after reading what Adam Beneschan wrote, I think that this a matter of implementation, not of interpretation. The WBFLC should not be concerned with how anyone implements L12C1 as long as there is no conflict with its words. Average minus does not *mean* anything more than what L12C1 says it means ("at most 40%"). Whether an award less than 40% should sometimes be awarded, or whether awards should balance (although they need not), is a regulatory matter to be decided at a lower level than the WBFLC, except for WBF events. Let the WBFLC change the Law if their "interpretation" is to be cast in concrete for everyone. Admittedly it is difficult to say where the line should be drawn between interpretation and implementation, but I think the WBFLC crossed the line in this matter, as they did when saying that violating L20F1 is a minor infraction that should not normally attract a penalty. That's implementation, not interpretation. In no way am I defending the ACBLLC's strange interpretation of L12C1. Marv mlfrench@writeme.com Off to Fresno Regional thru 10/10 -- ======================================================================== (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 Tue Oct 10 16:54:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9A6rNV19697 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:53:23 +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 e9A6rHt19693 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:53:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.88] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13itHh-000LbV-00; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 07:53:09 +0100 Message-ID: <001301c03286$f37c7400$585608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Todd Zimnoch" , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Meaningless? - was Definitions: Convention Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 07:53:58 +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 " The weak have one weapon: the errors of those who think they are strong." - Georges Bidault ----- Original Message ----- From: Todd Zimnoch To: Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 4:07 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Meaningless? - was Definitions: Convention > >From: "Grattan Endicott" > > bear the import that he has no other that > >he chooses to exercise his freedom in law to > >make > > His ability in law to make another call has > no bearing. His freedom according to the > system he plays does. > +=+ This is a dubious assertion indeed: From play - W N E S P P P 1NT* P 2C** P P P * 12-14 ** Stayman ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 10 17:57:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9A7upq19763 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:56:51 +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 (f277.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.55]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9A7ujt19759 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:56:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 00:56:37 -0700 Received: from 172.143.42.228 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 07:56:37 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.143.42.228] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Meaningless? - was Definitions: Convention Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 00:56:37 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Oct 2000 07:56:37.0302 (UTC) FILETIME=[9DA67D60:01C0328F] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Grattan Endicott" >----- Original Message ----- >From: Todd Zimnoch >To: >Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 4:07 AM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Meaningless? - was Definitions: Convention > > > >From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > bear the import that he has no other that > > >he chooses to exercise his freedom in law to > > >make > > > > His ability in law to make another call has > > no bearing. His freedom according to the > > system he plays does. > > >+=+ This is a dubious assertion indeed: > From play - > W N E S > > P P P 1NT* > P 2C** P P > P >* 12-14 ** Stayman ~ G ~ +=+ I don't understand what's dubious about it. The exposure of 1NT as a psych and the meaning of it as being most likely a weak-two in clubs is a consequence of the meanings assigned to the bids made in the system used. If the system were 1NT = "12-14 or a weak two in clubs", then there is no psych. His legal freedom to pass did not assign any meaning to his bid. You've only shown that one can violate one's system and show meaning. Also in this case, there are no bids in the system which were initially meaningless so it's not very relevant. I play Lebensohl over 2-level preempts. In one partnership, we have not defined a first-round response structure over 2NT other than "bid 3C". 2D-2NT-P- = undefined 2D-2NT-P-3C = I was forced to bid this I fail to see how any conclusion other than "I remembered our agreement" can be drawn from the auction 2D-2NT-P-3C just because my partner is legally able to pass or bid 3D and upwards. My partner has the freedom in law to make another bid, but he does not have that freedom in the system we play. Until he has another bid available to make, with a meaning that is exclusive to bidding 3C, 3C will remain meaningless. He can legally violate that agreement all he wants, but you cannot infer that he doesn't have a solid heart suit because he didn't bid 4H instead of the required 3C as you can infer in your example that he has a weak hand with long clubs because he opted to pass rather than bid the required 2D, 2H, or 2S. It's a matter of what options your system, not the law, allows. Also, the absurdis example of 1NT 1st seat all the time. Because I can pass or bid anything other than 1NT does not mean that when I decide I shouldn't break my agreement and open 1NT that it has any meaning which is a consequence of not making another call. At least not until my system allows me to make another call. -Todd (I apologize that I did not have the time to make this read less awkwar dly.) _________________________________________________________________________ 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 Oct 10 19:50:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9A9nXX19843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:49:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9A9nJt19828 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:49:20 +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 13iw27-0007tn-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:49:16 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 03:11:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Question References: <200010092109.RAA29658@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200010092109.RAA29658@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: Adam Beneschan >> I don't understand Mr. Blaiss' last paragraph, especially the part >> about "making sure that the offender is not advantaged". I don't see >> how giving an offender 40% when his opponents are having a 65% game is >> in any way advantageous to the offender. > >Oh, Adam. You just don't think like a villain. > >Suppose an average pair find that their next opponents are, say, >Meckwell. (They should have arranged to sit at Table 11!) Isn't it >conceivable that they could improve their score by fouling both boards >and taking 40%? The ACBL avoids that by giving them the complement of >Meckwell's score (a score that might well be better than 65% in a >session where average players are in the field). > >The WBF has followed a different approach since Lille, one that seems >to me to have less clear justification. Now that I think about it, I'm >not sure whether the Lille directive was supposed to apply to WBF >events only or to all Duplicate Contract Bridge. I do not think that anyone else but the ACBL uses this reciprocal approach. I also think the reasons give for it daft. If people really think that way in North America god help the game there. -- 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 Oct 10 19:50:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9A9naH19846 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:49:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9A9nKt19830 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:49:21 +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 13iw27-0007tl-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:49:17 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 03:06:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp References: <39DEE392.B2FC53C4@village.uunet.be> <39E0B889.2CFBC66D@village.uunet.be> <39E17FBC.EECDEEC7@village.uunet.be> <$ESK1uAJFm45Ewb2@probst.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <$ESK1uAJFm45Ewb2@probst.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >"*Ladies and Gentlemen*, let's all weep for Herman because he got fixed >by a clueless pair at his table", I won't say, but I'd probably think it >if you tried to pursue the matter much further. Really? Why do you think he is playing the Multi? The main advantage of the Multi is that it confuses poor opponents. Why are you offering any sympathy whatever to someone who is playing the Multi and managed to confuse his opponents? [s] >>Why does everyone have sympathy for East-West, who butched >>up a bidding, ended up in a 4-0 fit and yet were rescued ? >>While no-one seems to have any sympathy for North-South, who >>made not a single BAD call, and ended up -500 ? >Of course I've got sympathy for N/S who were more sinned against than >sinning, but I see no evidence of MI or UI on which to base an >adjustment. I really cannot see where you get your sympathy from. N/S play a convention designed to confuse: they managed to confuse the opponents: then they made a very poor call to let them off the hook. They seem to me to require as much sympathy as I got when Ron and I let through a slam off three cashing aces. -- 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 Oct 10 19:50:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9A9nZn19845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:49:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9A9nJt19827 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:49:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13iw26-0007tm-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:49:15 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 03:07:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp References: <006c01c03217$edf3fa40$b511f7a5@oemcomputer> <010d01c03241$9108a5e0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <010d01c03241$9108a5e0$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: > >From: "Craig Senior" wrote: >> >> In the ACBL and some other venues all cue bids are considered self alerting >> and are therefore non-alertable. In many other places high level cue bids >> (showing control not suit in slam bidding) are very basic, plain vanilla and >> thoroughly non-alertable. >> >Not quite right, Craig. > >From page 7 of 16 of the Alert Procedure (summarized) > >Most cue bids are not Alertable, with two exceptions (one might say three): > >1. The cue bid is a natural bid in a suit that was bid naturally by an >opponent. > >If the bid was merely shown, not actually bid, a natural bid in the suit is >not Alertable, e.g., a natural bid in a major after a 2D opening that shows >4=5 in the majors. > >2. The bid has a very unusual or unexpected meaning. > >I believe the ACBL considers that a natural bid in a suit that was bid >artificially by an opponent is not a cue bid. Whatever, it's not Alertable. > >I can find no use of the term "self-Alerting" in the Alert Procedure, and I >doubt that the ACBL uses it anywhere else. A call is either Alertable or it is >not Alertable, period. The terminology is not North American, true. But the principle is one used in North America and other places, and some of those other places [notably Australia] refer to such calls as self-alerting. -- 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 Oct 10 19:50:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9A9nYn19844 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:49:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 e9A9nKt19829 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:49:20 +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 13iw27-0007to-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:49:16 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 03:16:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Question References: <200010092326.QAA19365@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: >Hash: SHA1 > >At 4:26 PM -0700 10/9/00, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >>The Laws (excluding, for my present purpose, the official WBF >>interpretation) don't tell us how to assign an A- at matchpoints; the >>Laws say the scores don't have to balance, but they don't say "don't >>make a rule saying the scores have to balance." The Laws, by the >>absence of specificity, pretty much give SO's leeway to use whatever >>formula they wish for determining the score for an A-. So it really >>isn't contrary to the Laws, as written, for the ACBL to require that >>the scores must balance. >> >>Of course, since there is a WBF interpretation, this point is entirely >>moot. My intent here is to make a general observation about how we >>approach the interpretation of this type of linguistic construct. > >The laws give the TD authority to award artificial adjusted scores >that do not balance. To make a regulation which precludes the TD from >doing so *is* contrary to the laws. In particular, it violates Law >80F, which states that an SO may make regulations "supplementary to, >but not in conflict with, these Laws." Sorry, Ed, it won't wash. The ACBL has said that when you give A+/A- the scores should balance. But they have not said that you may not give [say] A+/A+, and then the scores will not balance. So the ACBL is not saying that L12C1 rulings should always balance, and thus their regulation is not contrary to the Laws based on your logic. Of course, what the ACBL should actually do is find out whether the A- pair is getting less than 40%, and if so they should balance the A+ pair. No, I am not serious ... -- 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 Oct 10 20:36:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9AAZfi19894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 20:35:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9AAZZt19890 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 20:35:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.0.ap (resu)) id MAA03644; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 12:35:13 +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 MAA17923; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 12:35:24 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001010124542.007eb5d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 12:45:42 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] the Visitor (was : Ruling in Antwerp) 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 e9AAZct19891 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello to all, and a specal Hello from a Visitor from outer space, who analyzed the notorious Antwerp deal : J A Q 6 5 2 K 10 5 2 - A 8 6 3 Q 9 7 5 4 2 A J 10 9 7 6 3 (2D) X (2H) 3H p 4H Here is what he thought of the E/W bidding : 1) the double of the artificial 2D (non-alerted, thus penalty) is imperfect, but pragmatic. 2) over the natural 2H, 3H is merely a forcing bid. A bid in the last suit called by opponents is artificial by essence, thus non-alertable. Unless, of course, it has a specific meaning (shortness-showing, stopper-asking, or (PBNFL) natural). [Ed's notice : yes, they use computer-style acronyms on ß Pictoris B, too] When it only means 'I'm strong, let's develop this hand the best we can', it shouldn't be alerted. 3) West's return cue-bid is strange, perhaps intending it as 'several possible strains', inending to correct 4S to 5C. Even if it is a bad bid, it is not alertable as such. And who on Earth (well, is Antwerp on Earth ?) (*) would think of raising in a natural sense a cue-bid from partner ? 4) I don't undestand the ensuing bidding very much, but it seems that, at the end, N/S found their good sacrifice against the making 5D. If North didn't bid 4S, E/W would have peacefully played in 5D, and made it for all I know. Of course, East could have bid 5D directly and N/S wouldn't have found the save. Bad time to cue ! 5) Damage ? Which damage ? 5H is the par of the hand, isn't it ? 6) West said his 4H was natural ? Strange, and a misconception. However, since it was not alerted, North should have understood it as a cue-bid (see point 2). For some reason I can't explain, the Visitor seems to have read into my mind. (*) sorry, Herman, I think your co-citizens went one step too far this Sunday. Time to do something drastic. 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 Oct 10 22:05:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9AC4Of20000 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 22:04:24 +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-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 e9AC4It19996 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 22:04:19 +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 e9AC21B13829 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 08:02:02 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20001010075056.00b7b640@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, 10 Oct 2000 08:04:09 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] The Masochism Tango In-Reply-To: <00100614333505.00736@psa836> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20001006082624.00b73e30@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20001006082624.00b73e30@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 10:30 AM 10/6/00, David wrote: > > I should note that I do not take as hard a position as Mr. Kaplan > > does. I agree that it is unethical to play to lose. But I'm not so > > sure that it's unethical to make anything other than winning one's > > highest priority. > >Here's an example the other way around. You are declarer and have >made a harmless revoke that the defenders did not notice. Is it >unethical to call the TD at the end of play and ask to be penalized one >trick? Remember that there is no obligation to draw attention to your >own revoke, as long as you have not conecealed it. Good example. I'd say no, but I believe Mr. Kaplan would have said yes. He would argue that the law entitles you to fail to draw attention, therefore to do so would be to deliberately reduce your score on the board by losing a trick you could properly have won, and that's dumping. I would argue that the law doesn't specifically prohibit you from calling attention, therefore you may, if you wish, place a higher priority on doing what you perceive to be sportsmanlike than on maximizing your score, and do so, without committing an ethical transgression. 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 Oct 10 22:23:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9ACNMY20055 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 22:23:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9ACNGt20051 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 22:23:17 +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 e9ACNCf83968 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 08:23:12 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20001010082036.00b8d100@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, 10 Oct 2000 08:25:20 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Fw: Tourney hand In-Reply-To: <012501c02fe6$6fc8fb80$ca0ebad1@gw.total.web.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:40 PM 10/6/00, Bill wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Pam" > > > Watching the OKB tourney tonight I saw an interesting director > > decision... > > > > EW are playing in 2HX vul vs vul and at trick one declarer > inadvertently > > clicks on "claim" (claiming 13). The contract is going 2 off on any > > normal defence except that if NS play double dummy (they can now of > > course see all 4 hands but declarer cannot) they can get another trick > > for 3 off. What to do? Call the director (good on them!). > > > > N called for the director, explained that E had inadvertently > misclicked > > the claim and asked whether the board should be skipped or whether it > > was now OK for them to play double dummy and the director said, without > > any thought at all, "sure - carry on" and disappeared. > > > > The contract duly goes for 800. > > > > No complaints from EW and everyone behaved impeccably, I just wondered > > what you lot thought of the ruling and whether anyone can think of a > > "proper" law that covers this. I did have a quick look through but it > > doesn't seem to me that any of the laws really fit but it also doesn't > > seem like the defenders are now allowed to play double dummy (S had > > already asked why the director had been called because even seeing all > > the cards saw only 7 tricks for the defence). > > > > It's not an easy one is it? - declarer hadn't really claimed, just > > misclicked and it was a bit like some outside influence (in this case > > the software) had exposed all the cards. Perhaps the best course for OKB would be to forget the legal issue add a confirmation dialog to their software. (Something like click "Claim" and get a message box "Claim for xx tricks./OK/Cancel".) As Pam says, it feels a bit like a software problem, so perhaps calls for a software solution. 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 Oct 10 23:20:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9ADIuP20110 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 23:18:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9ADIot20106 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 23:18:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.89.179] (helo=D457300) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13izIn-0004l6-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:18:41 +0100 Message-ID: <001001c032bc$756b9880$b359073e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200010092326.QAA19365@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Question Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:17:33 +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: > Of course, what the ACBL should actually do is find out whether the A- > pair is getting less than 40%, and if so they should balance the A+ > pair. No, I am not serious ... It seems to me that what they might do is consider what "should" happen when a pair averaging 70% plays against a pair averaging 40%. Presumably, the 70% pair is expected to get, on average, 30% more on any given board than the 40% pair (after all, that is what they have been doing on all the other boards). If this were to happen, the 70% pair would get 65% and the 40% pair would get 35%. Why not, then, leave the 70% pair with their session average, and give the offenders the 35% that they "would have got" against this pair? 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 Oct 10 23:28:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9ADRsL20127 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 23:27:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tantalum.btinternet.com (tantalum.btinternet.com [194.73.73.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9ADRmt20122 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 23:27:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.89.179] (helo=D457300) by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13izRW-0006Jw-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:27:43 +0100 Message-ID: <002101c032bd$b8403fc0$b359073e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions: Convention Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:26:35 +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 Todd wrote: > >From: "David Burn" > >The Definition needs (at least) to be rewritten like this: > > > >"Convention: A call that, by partnership agreement, does not convey at > >least one of the following meanings: willingness to play in the > >denomination named (or in the last denomination named); or high-card > >strength in the suit named; or length (three cards or more) in the suit > >named." > > That would suck! As 1NT-2S (showing spades and a minor) would cease to > be conventional. It not only has to show at least one of those meanings, > but it can show no other other than overall strength of the hand. Yes, I know. That is why I used the words "at least" in my suggested alternative. In full, the requirement would be something like: "Convention: A call that, by partnership agreement, relates to a denomination other than the one named, or does not convey at least one of the following meanings: acceptance that the caller's side should pass for the remainder of the auction; or high-card strength in the suit named; or length (three cards or more) in the suit named." Apologies for lack of completeness in my previous effort - at the time, I was merely trying to sort out the grammatical difficulty that existed in the current Definition, rather than suggest a viable replacement. 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 Oct 10 23:31:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9ADVXV20139 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 23:31:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9ADVRt20135 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 23:31:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13izV4-0004sC-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:31:23 +0000 Message-ID: <7aKQWwA3dx45EwqB@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:19:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Fw: Tourney hand References: <012501c02fe6$6fc8fb80$ca0ebad1@gw.total.web.net> <4.3.2.7.1.20001010082036.00b8d100@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20001010082036.00b8d100@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 the best course for OKB would be to forget the legal issue add >a confirmation dialog to their software. (Something like click "Claim" >and get a message box "Claim for xx tricks./OK/Cancel".) As Pam says, >it feels a bit like a software problem, so perhaps calls for a software >solution. I don't think that is much of a solution. It takes two clicks to claim now: anyone who is clicking twice automatically so the second click is insufficient protection will click three times just as automatically. People who take care before the second click will just be annoyed by a third click. -- 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 Oct 10 23:46:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9ADkRd20170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 23:46:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hermes.isi.com (hermes.isi.com [192.73.222.27]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9ADkKt20166 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 23:46:21 +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 GAA03379 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 06:48:02 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard Willey" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 09:49:58 -0400 Message-ID: <001301c032c0$fabd6640$23c3e080@isi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >Really? Why do you think he is playing the Multi? > > The main advantage of the Multi is that it confuses poor > opponents. Why are you offering any sympathy whatever to someone > who is > playing the Multi and managed to confuse his opponents? Am I alone in taking strong objection to statements like from law makers? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOeMehbFdMFbo8dHHEQJ58QCgnr/lGxB+tQLkMpVOAihke2mq+wQAoP10 fu0EJXUoUl2fL9yoUNVMHWxb =ZfUW -----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 Oct 11 00:32:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9AEVoZ20206 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 00:31:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9AEVit20202 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 00:31:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-249.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.249]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA12757 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:31:38 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39E2EE47.E984E170@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 12:24:08 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp References: <000201c03218$84d30640$66d336cb@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: > > > You've missed the point, Herman, West raised 3H to 4H. It is > evident from the bidding that West treated 3H as a natural bid. > Thus "evidence" exists that West thought 3H was natural. Further > evidence of this is that it's only the second time that EW had > played together, so they have not had the opportunity to develop > an understanding about the meaning of 3H in such an obscure auction. > > Alain wrote: > >> 3) there is no evidence that it was conventional. > Herman wrote: > >How about the fact that he did it ? > > > >"The TD is to assume misinformation rather than misbid". > > "in the absence of evidence...", but such evidence exists. > This will turn out to be the crux of the problem. I have always interpreted this far more strictly. If this seems to be the generally held view, I shall adjust mine. There is no misinformation. -- 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 Oct 11 01:45:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9AFiSr20309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 01:44:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9AFiIt20305 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 01:44:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from p80s07a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.119.129] helo=pacific) by cobalt1-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13j1XW-0004d8-00; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:42:02 +0100 Message-ID: <000201c032d0$7243b480$817793c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Richard Willey" , References: <001301c032c0$fabd6640$23c3e080@isi.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:35:23 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Willey To: Sent: 10 October 2000 14:49 Subject: RE: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp > >Really? Why do you think he is playing the Multi? > > > > The main advantage of the Multi is that it confuses poor > > opponents. Why are you offering any sympathy whatever to someone > > who is > > playing the Multi and managed to confuse his opponents? > > Am I alone in taking strong objection to statements like from law > makers? > +=+ I do not know of any law maker who has said this. I thought it cropped up in messages between people who are not law makers. ~ 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 Oct 11 02:41:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9AGf4Z20346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 02:41:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9AGevt20338 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 02:40:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id MAA21833 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 12:39:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA09341 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 12:39:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 12:39:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200010101639.MAA09341@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Question X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" [Reason to sit at Table 11:] > Meckwell is at Table 3. Are you assuming > a skip after 8 rounds of a 16-table game? After seven rounds with 14 tables, but I may have counted the wrong number of fingers. > You're sounding like a candidate for appointment to the ACBLLC. God forbid! > Of course the > Lille interpretations were offical interpretations of the Laws of Duplicate > Bridge for everyone, not just for the WBF. Well, that's certainly the appearance, but as you say in a different message: > The WBFLC should not be > concerned with how anyone implements L12C1 as long as there is no conflict > with its words. Now it seemed to me, as to everyone else, that the WBFLC was attempting to issue a "universal interpretation," but maybe we misunderstood what they were trying to do. As an aside, as David Burn has said, the "equity" way of calculating artificial scores would be to consider the session scores of _both_ pairs. If an average pair meets another average pair, equity is 50/50. (Of course we award the required 60/40.) If a 70% pair meets an average pair, equity is 70/30. Similarly, if an average pair meets a 30% pair, equity is also 70/30. I'd have to work out a formula to calculate equity when a 70% pair meets a 30% pair, but it must be in the neighborhood of 80/20 or 85/15. (Herman?) The ACBLLC and WBFLC approachs represent nothing more than _different_ simplifications of the "equity" calculation. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 11 02:46:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9AGkVx20360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 02:46:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9AGkNt20356 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 02:46:24 +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 QAA09937 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:45:40 GMT Message-ID: <39E34809.374F0BD@meteo.fr> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 18:47:05 +0200 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp References: <001301c032c0$fabd6640$23c3e080@isi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Willey a écrit : > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > >Really? Why do you think he is playing the Multi? > > > > The main advantage of the Multi is that it confuses poor > > opponents. Why are you offering any sympathy whatever to someone > > who is > > playing the Multi and managed to confuse his opponents? > > Am I alone in taking strong objection to statements like from law > makers? no (even without the "from law makers" termination in your sentence). 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 Wed Oct 11 03:03:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9AH3Ut20391 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 03:03:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f178.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.178]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9AH3Pt20387 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 03:03:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:03:17 -0700 Received: from 134.134.248.27 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:03:17 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.27] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Fw: Tourney hand Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:03:17 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Oct 2000 17:03:17.0334 (UTC) FILETIME=[FBFE2F60:01C032DB] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson >Eric Landau wrote: > >Perhaps the best course for OKB would be to forget the legal issue add > >a confirmation dialog to their software. (Something like click "Claim" > >and get a message box "Claim for xx tricks./OK/Cancel".) As Pam says, > >it feels a bit like a software problem, so perhaps calls for a software > >solution. > > I don't think that is much of a solution. It takes two clicks to >claim now: anyone who is clicking twice automatically so the second >click is insufficient protection will click three times just as >automatically. People who take care before the second click will just >be annoyed by a third click. Two clicks. One click to claim. A dialog box appears allowing you to add a claim statement as well. This dialog box should not appear near the claim button on the screen, so you cannot double-click. The dialog box allows you to cancel before anyone knows you've tried to claim. You'll have no excuse for accidentally mis-clicking to claim and it's still only 2 clicks. Now in a dream world, you would be forced to type something in that dialog box to remind you that you should provide a claim statement as well. -Todd CLIs are dead, love live CLIs! (Command Line Interfaces) _________________________________________________________________________ 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 Oct 11 03:17:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9AHGvC20432 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 03:16:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9AHGgt20428 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 03:16:43 +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 NAA04407 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:19:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200010101719.NAA04407@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: References: <39DEE392.B2FC53C4@village.uunet.be> <39E0B889.2CFBC66D@village.uunet.be> <39E17FBC.EECDEEC7@village.uunet.be> <$ESK1uAJFm45Ewb2@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:19:26 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 10 October 2000 at 3:06, David Stevenson wrote: >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >>"*Ladies and Gentlemen*, let's all weep for Herman because he got fixed >>by a clueless pair at his table", I won't say, but I'd probably think it >>if you tried to pursue the matter much further. > > Really? Why do you think he is playing the Multi? > > The main advantage of the Multi is that it confuses poor opponents. >Why are you offering any sympathy whatever to someone who is playing the >Multi and managed to confuse his opponents? > >From my leftpondian view, I believe this to be wrong. The main advantage of the Multi is that it doubles up on the preempts you can make. For instance, the Canadian Junior Team in Ann Arbor used: 2D: mini-Multi 2M: 5-5, bid M + m I am more obnoxious than this, I'm afraid. Were I to play in a Multi-enabled event, I'd play the following (used by one pair in the 1997 Canadian Junior Trials): 2D: mini-Multi 2H: Ekren (4-4 or better in both M, 4-10) 2S: bad preempt in a minor 3m: happy to have partner bid 3NT Yes, it confuses poor opponents. OTOH, here, at least, there shouldn't be any poor opponents (bad-poor, not sympathy-poor) in a Mid-chart legal event. But I'm not playing it for the confusion values; I'm playing it for the addition of the 2H bid, and the additional definition of the 3m preempts. And neither of those bids is confusing at all (mean and nasty, yes. But not confusing). >They seem to >me to require as much sympathy as I got when Ron and I let through a >slam off three cashing aces. > True. And you do get my sympathy. As does Herman. As does [Expert's name elided], when he misdefended and let a no-play 6D contract, bid on a misunderstanding, come home. OTGH, I have absolutely no sympathy for same said expert who griped about not getting the meaning of his opponents' third-round double (which was the start of their misunderstanding, it was obvious they had no agreement) for ten minutes, trying to get a skip (OKB version of "want an adjustment"). Oh, did I just complete the circle? Sorry. 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 Oct 11 03:43:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9AHgvg20464 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 03:42:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9AHght20459 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 03:42:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA05192 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:44:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200010101744.NAA05192@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <001301c032c0$fabd6640$23c3e080@isi.com> References: <001301c032c0$fabd6640$23c3e080@isi.com> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:44:43 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 10 October 2000 at 9:49, "Richard Willey" wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > Richard, could you please keep the attributions? Luckily I remembered who wrote this :-). [DWS] >>Really? Why do you think he is playing the Multi? >> >> The main advantage of the Multi is that it confuses poor >> opponents. Why are you offering any sympathy whatever to someone >> who is >> playing the Multi and managed to confuse his opponents? > >Am I alone in taking strong objection to statements like from law >makers? > While I can't agree with David (see previous message), I don't see what's wrong with the statement. There *are* bids that are primarily designed to win through chaos (Suspensor 1M, for instance, or the Terrorist 2S) and some that have that as a, not-unwanted, side-effect (Multi, Wilkosz, even EHAA 2-bids). These bids have a place in Bridge (though probably restricted from the poor opponents (in this case, I think, both bad-poor, and sympathy-poor)) and frankly, when they backfire on their wielders, they should just "suck it up", and not go looking for sympathy. As I have said before, and above, I don't think the Multi is primarily designed to cause chaos. But it wins from minimizing information sometimes, and it loses from minimizing information sometimes. I apologize to anyone that I may have offended here; I try not to be so strong in my language, but I can't figure out how to temper it this time. Michael, who's rememberng the auction 1C(Precision)-1S(13 cards)-2S- "Please explain" "Sorry, we have no agreement over 1S showing nothing" P-4S+1 for 20/25. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 11 04:28:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9AISDc20506 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 04:28:13 +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 e9AIS6t20502 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 04:28:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA08382; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 11:28:02 -0700 Message-Id: <200010101828.LAA08382@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Fw: Tourney hand In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:19:51 PDT." <7aKQWwA3dx45EwqB@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 11:28:02 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > > >Perhaps the best course for OKB would be to forget the legal issue add > >a confirmation dialog to their software. (Something like click "Claim" > >and get a message box "Claim for xx tricks./OK/Cancel".) As Pam says, > >it feels a bit like a software problem, so perhaps calls for a software > >solution. > > I don't think that is much of a solution. It takes two clicks to > claim now: anyone who is clicking twice automatically so the second > click is insufficient protection will click three times just as > automatically. People who take care before the second click will just > be annoyed by a third click. A long time ago (before mice [mouses?] were in widespread use), I worked for a company that produced dental-office software. The company was just starting out and had relatively few customers. Our software asked "Are you sure?" and waited for a Y or N keyboard response, whenever the user requested some action with potentially serious consequences, but we had one user, Rosalie, who complained that the software didn't do enough to make sure she didn't get herself into trouble. So we installed a customized version of the software that would ask, "Are you sure?" If she said Y, it would ask "Are you really sure?" Then, if she typed Y again, "Are you really, really sure?" And finally, if she confirmed again: "Rosalie, are you really positive you want to do this?" I don't think there's any point to the story, but this discussion reminded me of it. :) -- 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 Oct 11 04:41:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9AIfhq20524 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 04:41:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hermes.isi.com (hermes.isi.com [192.73.222.27]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9AIfat20520 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 04:41:37 +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 LAA06398 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 11:43:18 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard Willey" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:45:13 -0400 Message-ID: <003001c032ea$399b77c0$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: <200010101744.NAA05192@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Michael > Farebrother > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 1:45 PM > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp > While I can't agree with David (see previous message), I don't see > what's wrong with the statement. There *are* bids that are > primarily designed to win through chaos (Suspensor 1M, for > instance, or the > Terrorist 2S) and some that have that as a, not-unwanted, > side-effect (Multi, Wilkosz, even EHAA 2-bids). I think that you are confusing two different issues. In the abstract, there are certainly bids that are deliberately designed to be difficult to defend against. As an example, both a Suction type overcall and a Wilkosz 2D opening deprive the opponents of a defined cue bid in direct seat. This certainly makes it more difficult for the opponents to immediately clarify their hand type. Conceptually, this is quite different from bids that are theoretically easy to defend against, however, the defense requires that the opposing pair has a precise understanding regarding different bidding sequences. My impression is that your comments are specifically directed to the first type of bid. David seems to be stating that poor players are not properly prepared to defend against a Multi. This would place the multi into the second category. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOeNjtrFdMFbo8dHHEQKtkgCghzvrRuGTG86Xzn0nmApCfDtcj5oAnjGU dHmiHx44K+FlOSVWPH75qzA6 =VmFJ -----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 Oct 11 06:24:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9AKNem20599 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 06:23:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from fe050.worldonline.dk (fe050.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.206]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e9AKNUt20589 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 06:23:31 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200010102023.e9AKNUt20589@rgb.anu.edu.au> Received: (qmail 25827 invoked by uid 0); 10 Oct 2000 20:23:21 -0000 Received: from 66.ppp1-6.worldonline.dk (HELO idefix) (212.54.73.66) by fe050.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 10 Oct 2000 20:23:21 -0000 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 22:23:22 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Question Reply-to: jensogbodil@alesia.dk X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote ( 9 Oct 00): > Which opinion you consider legal depends on your point of view. The > WBFLC has the sole authority to interpret the Laws, so I maintain > that any conflicting ACBLLC interpretation is illegal. I have disagreed with this before, but not in this forum, so let me reiterate. 1. L81C5 mentions that the TD is responsible for interpreting the laws. 2. L93B1 mentions that an appeal of a TD decision on a point of law is decided by the CTD. 3. L93C mentions that appeals (including those on a point of law) can be decided by the national authority. 4. The laws do not mention the authority of the WBFLC anywhere. 5. The WBFLC does not promulgate its interpretations, e.g. the "Code of Practice", by decreeing that it is now as valid as the laws are throughout all organizations associated with the WBF. Instead, it asks the zonal and national organizations to consider implementing it. All of these points seem to indicate that the WBFLC itself does not share your opinion that it has the sole authority to interpret the laws. The DBF Laws Commission, which I chair, is the ultimate authority for interpreting the laws within the DBF. If we issue an interpretation on a point of law and the WBFLC happens to disagree, our interpretation, not the WBFLC's, is what counts in the DBF. We try to stay abreast of the WBFLC's opinions, but we reserve the right not to implement them. That is certainly fully consistent with the by-laws of the DBF, and I hope that it is also fully acknowledged by the EBL and the WBF. -- Jens og Bodil, hjemme http://www.alesia.dk/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 11 06:24:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9AKNdL20598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 06:23:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from fe050.worldonline.dk (fe050.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.206]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e9AKNUt20590 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 06:23:31 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200010102023.e9AKNUt20590@rgb.anu.edu.au> Received: (qmail 25813 invoked by uid 0); 10 Oct 2000 20:23:19 -0000 Received: from 66.ppp1-6.worldonline.dk (HELO idefix) (212.54.73.66) by fe050.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 10 Oct 2000 20:23:19 -0000 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 22:23:22 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp Reply-to: jensogbodil@alesia.dk X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote ( 9 Oct 00): > Do you know a single alerting regulation in which it is not > required to alert a bid made on a void ? Well, in Denmark all alerts are off at the 4 level and higher. But that is nitpicking, since this bid was at the 3 level. Seriously, though, alerting regulations require you to alert if there is *an agreement* that the bid shows a void. What hand the bidder happens to have is irrelevant for all alerting regulations I have ever heard of. In this case, the evidence seems to favor that EW's correct explanation of their entire auction would be: "We don't really have an agreed defense to the multi." You may argue that it is an infraction not to alert all the ensuing bids, being prepared to explain "I have no idea, since we have no real agreement; partner may have intended an alertable meaning of the bid, but our agreements simply don't cover this auction." You may also argue that this missing alert damaged NS, but I think that you might not be able to convince me. I would be easier to convince that NS are damaged by the confusion that results from ES not having an agreed defense against the multi - all of which is disapppointing to NS, since they won't be compensated for that. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://www.alesia.dk/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 11 07:05:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9AL4YN20639 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 07:04:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9AL4Rt20635 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 07:04:28 +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 RAA09789 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:07:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200010102107.RAA09789@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <003001c032ea$399b77c0$23c3e080@isi.com> References: <003001c032ea$399b77c0$23c3e080@isi.com> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:07:12 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 10 October 2000 at 14:45, "Richard Willey" wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > > From: Michael Farebrother >> While I can't agree with David (see previous message), I don't see >> what's wrong with the statement. There *are* bids that are >> primarily designed to win through chaos (Suspensor 1M, for >> instance, or the >> Terrorist 2S) and some that have that as a, not-unwanted, >> side-effect (Multi, Wilkosz, even EHAA 2-bids). > >I think that you are confusing two different issues. > I think I didn't see your point the first time - I'll try addressing it again, with the new information. Just to note, however, I first read David's comment of "poor opponents" as "the poor opponents"; i.e. opps deserving sympathy for having to deal with this, rather than fish. Bad players are going to have trouble with anything non-standard. And at least in England, my impression was that multi was as common as Flannery is over here; i.e. one would expect to run across 2 or 3 pairs playing it in an average session, even at clubs. In other words, it's worth investing time adding a defence to it into your system (I'd say at least half the pairs here play some Flannery defence - probably only 20% of those actually *playing* the convention do, though :-) even for an occasional partnership. >In the abstract, there are certainly bids that are deliberately >designed to be difficult to defend against. >As an example, both a Suction type overcall and a Wilkosz 2D opening >deprive the opponents of a defined cue bid in direct seat. This >certainly makes it more difficult for the opponents to immediately >clarify their hand type. Well, defending against the Multi and against Wilkosz 2D face the same problems. In fact, from the point of view of soeone who doesn't get to play against either, thanks to my SO's hand-holding, I'd use the same defence against "weak 2 in a major" and "weak, 5-5 including a major". So, as far as I can see, the problems faced by the opponents are the same (until they buy the contract - then the Multi pair haven't given as much count information out). I would actually think that the EHAA 2-bid (6-12HCP, 5+ cards, no longer suit, *ALL* hands that meet those criteria) would be much harder to defend against than a bid that guarantees you two chances to speak, like the (non-mini) Multi. In a similar vein, that's why I play a weak NT rescue system that does *not* include "pass forces redouble". When I give the opps two chances to speak, it's because I want them to rescue *me*. >Conceptually, this is quite different from bids that are >theoretically easy to defend against, however, the defense requires >that the opposing pair has a precise understanding regarding >different bidding sequences. > Well, I can't see how this applies to (at least the Mini-) Multi 2D, as I said in the last paragraph. It is difficult to defend against. That's why even the easy defences are half-a-page. OTOH, my Lebensohl primer is half-a-page, and that doesn't count the bits that deal with artificial overcalls. That doesn't stop it from being close to universal in a milieu that includes DONT overcalls. How about Bergen-style 2-under preempts? Theoretically easier to defend against, as you have a cue-bid at the 2-level, but they are played rarely, and are *very* aggressive. >My impression is that your comments are specifically directed to the >first type of bid. >David seems to be stating that poor players are not properly prepared >to defend against a Multi. This would place the multi into the >second category. > In the meaning that "you really need a prepared defence", well, yes. But this applies to most disruptive conventions; Wilkosz, Suction, CRASH, even a natural 2S overcall of your 1NT. Remember, in the WBF, Multi is a "exception from Brown-Sticker" convention - it's grandfathered in, because people have been playing against it for so long that a decent defence has been devised. I believe that its low-level licence in the EBU is due to a similar grandfathering. I believe David believes that most Multi-playing pairs play it primarily for the difficulty it causes unprepared opponents. I don't agree with him, but he has *much* more expreience with Multi-playing pairs than I, so ICBW. 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 Oct 11 10:13:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9B0Cbl20763 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 10:12:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9B0CUt20759 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 10:12:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.20.122] (helo=D457300) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13j9VR-00042G-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 01:12:26 +0100 Message-ID: <003801c03317$c8f15f20$7a14073e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <000201c03218$84d30640$66d336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <39E2EE47.E984E170@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 01:11:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: > Peter Gill wrote: > > You've missed the point, Herman, West raised 3H to 4H. It is > > evident from the bidding that West treated 3H as a natural bid. > > Thus "evidence" exists that West thought 3H was natural. Further > > evidence of this is that it's only the second time that EW had > > played together, so they have not had the opportunity to develop > > an understanding about the meaning of 3H in such an obscure auction. > > > > Alain wrote: > > >> 3) there is no evidence that it was conventional. > > Herman wrote: > > >How about the fact that he did it ? > > > > > >"The TD is to assume misinformation rather than misbid". > > > > "in the absence of evidence...", but such evidence exists. > > > > This will turn out to be the crux of the problem. > > I have always interpreted this far more strictly. > > If this seems to be the generally held view, I shall adjust > mine. > > There is no misinformation. In questions of "misbid or misexplanation", there is a burden of proof placed on the side making a call to show that it has been explained correctly according to their system (but that it was an error according to that system). How heavy that burden is depends on the standards of disclosure required in the event being played. When East bids 3H in the auction: West North East South 2D (Multi) Dble 2H 3H and it transpires that East has five or six fewer hearts than West expected, the burden of proof will vary enormously depending on context. In a locale where the players are supposed to be experienced and the Multi is a common phenomenon, East-West would be expected to be 100% certain of their agreements - so that, unless they could show strong evidence that 3H was in fact natural according to their methods, there would be a presumption of misexplanation (per Law 75D). But if the players are known to be inexperienced and the Multi is something with which they as a partnership rarely have to cope, then one would be far less inclined to say that a man who failed to alert 3H had failed to explain his side's methods - for there almost certainly are no agreed methods for him to explain. The cornerstone of the de Wael school, as I understand it, is this: if a player does X, then X must be presumed to be in accordance with his system (unless his side can categorically show otherwise). Now, whereas I have some sympathy with this view in regard to experienced players with considerable partnership history (and whereas I would have much sympathy with a policy for an international event that was constructed along those lines), I do not believe that it can be fairly or consistently applied in cases where there is patently no partnership history or experience. I would not rule in favour of Herman in this case for those reasons. Having said that, I feel that Herman has come in for a great deal of grossly unfair criticism for airing this case, and for soliciting opinions. Some of those opinions have paid far too much attention to the actual hand, and far too little to the legal principles involved. It is quite ridiculous to say that the purpose of playing a Multi is to confuse the opponents - it is not. The purpose of playing a Multi is, as others have pointed out, to increase the number of hands which your system can (or can hope to) describe by opening the bidding. It is also ridiculous to criticise a man for asking whether or not the actions taken by a pair were potentially in breach of Law or regulation - after all, that is one of the purposes of this list. The question is a perfectly valid one, and Herman should not have been attacked on all sides for asking it. Four spades on the hand in question was probably not a very sensible bid, but that is not what we are here to judge either. I hope that this issue may now be laid to rest, since it has generated vast amounts of heat and very little light. 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 Oct 11 12:27:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9B2QdU20846 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:26:39 +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 e9B2QYt20842 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:26:35 +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 NAA19474 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:21:35 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:22:18 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Godel, Escher and Bridge To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:23:15 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 11/10/2000 01:19:11 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The logician Kurt Godel uncovered a paradox at the heart of mathematics. Godel proved that any mathematical or logical system was necessarily incomplete, since it could be demonstrated that there were true statements that the system was unable to prove. (And it was no use augmenting the system by adding the true-but-unprovable statements to a revised system as additional axioms, since the new improved system would automatically generate new true statements that could not be proved.) Most blmlers would be familiar with the art of M. C. Escher, who specialised in portraying paradoxes (for example, two hands drawing each other). The Bridge Laws also contain logical paradoxes. One example of a Lawful paradox was publicised by Jeff Rubens in his 1977 Bridge World article, "The Bet": North leads, East plays, South revokes, and West also revokes, with West winning the trick. West leads to the next trick, establishing West's revoke. However, before North plays to the next trick, the unestablished South revoke is corrected. Now L63C says that West's revoke card may no longer be corrected, but L62C1 says that the card may be withdrawn. A less esoteric paradox is regulations under one Law superseding other Laws (for example, regulations for screens and online bridge). Both these paradoxes can be resolved by textual revisions in the next edition of the Laws, but Godel will have the last laugh as new paradoxes will be created by the new Laws. 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 Oct 11 13:26:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9B3Q1B20888 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:26:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f21.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9B3Ptt20884 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:25:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 20:25:47 -0700 Received: from 172.155.29.40 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 03:25:47 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.155.29.40] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Godel, Escher and Bridge Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 20:25:47 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Oct 2000 03:25:47.0306 (UTC) FILETIME=[F24FA0A0:01C03332] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk If I remember my Gödel correctly, he doesn't imply that paradoxes must exist other than something will be true which you can't prove. His proof also requires that the axiomatic system you are using is consistent. That is, there's no statement P provably correct in the system where !P is also provably correct. Bridge law isn't even that far that it can be subject to the incompleteness theorem. :) Our goal is to get it there! -Todd >From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au >To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au >Subject: Re: [BLML] Godel, Escher and Bridge >Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:23:15 +1000 > > >The logician Kurt Godel uncovered a paradox at the heart >of mathematics. Godel proved that any mathematical or >logical system was necessarily incomplete, since it could >be demonstrated that there were true statements that the system >was unable to prove. (And it was no use augmenting the system >by adding the true-but-unprovable statements to a revised >system as additional axioms, since the new improved system >would automatically generate new true statements that could not >be proved.) > >Most blmlers would be familiar with the art of M. C. Escher, >who specialised in portraying paradoxes (for example, two >hands drawing each other). > >The Bridge Laws also contain logical paradoxes. > >One example of a Lawful paradox was publicised by Jeff >Rubens in his 1977 Bridge World article, "The Bet": > >North leads, East plays, South revokes, and West also revokes, >with West winning the trick. West leads to the next trick, >establishing West's revoke. However, before North plays to >the next trick, the unestablished South revoke is corrected. Now >L63C says that West's revoke card may no longer be corrected, >but L62C1 says that the card may be withdrawn. > >A less esoteric paradox is regulations under one Law superseding >other Laws (for example, regulations for screens and online bridge). > >Both these paradoxes can be resolved by textual revisions in the >next edition of the Laws, but Godel will have the last laugh as new >paradoxes will be created by the new Laws. > >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/ _________________________________________________________________________ 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 Oct 11 13:35:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9B3YpE20903 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:34:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9B3Yit20899 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:34:45 +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, 10 Oct 2000 20:35:01 -0700 Message-ID: <01f201c03334$0cd0cb60$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200010102023.e9AKNUt20589@rgb.anu.edu.au> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Question (long) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 20:33:19 -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 From: "Jens & Bodil" > Marvin L. French wrote ( 9 Oct 00): > > > Which opinion you consider legal depends on your point of view. The > > WBFLC has the sole authority to interpret the Laws, so I maintain > > that any conflicting ACBLLC interpretation is illegal. > > I have disagreed with this before, but not in this forum, so let me > reiterate. > > 1. L81C5 mentions that the TD is responsible for interpreting the > laws. At the tournament level, yes. S/he first looks for current interpretations before coming up with something new if necessary. A new interpretation by the TD is tentative, subject to CTD approval. > > 2. L93B1 mentions that an appeal of a TD decision on a point of law > is decided by the CTD. At the tournament level, yes. The CTD first looks for current intepretations before deciding. A new interpretation, appealed or not, should be documented and forwarded to the national authority (in ACBL-land, the National Laws Commission) for its scrutiny. [Hmm. What is the difference between the National Laws Commission and the ACBL Laws Commission? I have no idea.] > > 3. L93C mentions that appeals (including those on a point of law) > can be decided by the national authority. At that level, yes. Tentatively, for the moment. Any new interpretations (not appealable) should be documented and forwarded to the WBFLC for its scrutiny, since that body has final say over interpretations of the Laws. > 4. The laws do not mention the authority of the WBFLC anywhere. That is because the WBFLC has decided that it would not be feasible to have itself included in the appeals process. Just because the decision of a national authority is final, binding, does not mean that a new interpretation becomes a part of the Laws. Only the WBFLC's concurrence can accomplish that. > 5. The WBFLC does not promulgate its interpretations, e.g. the > "Code of Practice", by decreeing that it is now as valid as the laws > are throughout all organizations associated with the WBF. Instead, > it asks the zonal and national organizations to consider > implementing it. The Code of Practice for Appeals Committees, to give its full title, was not developed and promulgated by the WBFLC, but by the Gang of Lausanne. That is why it is optional. It not "as valid as the Laws," but consists mostly of procedures to be used in appeals, which the Laws do not address. An illegal section of it that does conflict with the Laws has been okayed (not by the LC, but by the Executive Council(?), for use in WBF events on a trial basis, and others are trying it out, but the Laws remain unchanged. The ACBL is an "organization associated with the WBF," and it has not adopted the CoP. > > All of these points seem to indicate that the WBFLC itself does not > share your opinion that it has the sole authority to interpret the > laws. > I disagree. Let Ton Kooijman of the WBFLC give his opinion. I think you will find he agrees with me. > The DBF Laws Commission, which I chair, is the ultimate authority for > interpreting the laws within the DBF. If we issue an interpretation > on a point of law and the WBFLC happens to disagree, our > interpretation, not the WBFLC's, is what counts in the DBF. I presume then, that the DBF, like the ACBL, is not living up to what it agreed to when joining the WBF, which is to abide by the WBF Constitution and its By-Laws. > We try > to stay abreast of the WBFLC's opinions, but we reserve the right > not to implement them. That is certainly fully consistent with the > by-laws of the DBF, and I hope that it is also fully acknowledged by > the EBL and the WBF. Maybe the DBF should write its own set of Laws next time, perhaps getting together with the ACBL in a splinter organization that believes that the rules of the game should not have central control. This is long enough, but here are some extracts from a message of Grattan's: "The WBFLC has the responsibility for the international code of laws; it decided to make no change in the laws for the present and probably until 2005. The Code of Practice Group established with Executive authority had decided (a) to introduce a new procedure for WBF appeals, and (b) to promulgate to all member NCBOs its Code of Practice with the hope expressed that they will adopt it. How they do this, gradual introduction from the top down being likely, is a matter for the NCBOs and the Zones. (I say 'how'; this includes 'whether'.) "With grace, the WBFLC has stood aside and allowed that the matter is not one in which it should seek to intervene. It has expressed a willingness to think about the Law when it embarks on a major review of the laws. In the interim, with authority of the Executive, the manner of adoption of the procedure in Bermuda is opened up for any who wish to follow. The European Bridge League has already reacted positively. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ And, so far as I know, that's where things stand. Marv mlfrench@writeme.com Off to Fresno Regional thru 10/10 -- ======================================================================== (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 Wed Oct 11 14:02:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9B427X20946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 14:02:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.0.213]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9B421t20942 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 14:02:02 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id B22098F31; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 00:01:53 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 00:01:53 -0400 To: richard.hills@immi.gov.au From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] Godel, Escher and Bridge 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 >The logician Kurt Godel uncovered a paradox at the heart >of mathematics. Godel proved that any mathematical or >logical system was necessarily incomplete, since it could >be demonstrated that there were true statements that the system >was unable to prove. I'm not an expert on the incompleteness theorem, but as it's usually stated it applies only to systems powerful enough to express their own rules, such as computer languages. Bridge would not fall into the category. Strictly speaking the theorem also applies only to formal systems, though it's easy to show that it holds for some informal systems such as natural language, e.g., English. I conclude that it need not be impossible to produce a subset of laws that are correct and complete. The subset would have to exclude some areas, such as MI and UI. All the same, I expect that any set of laws would benefit from formal analysis, which could potentially identify all paradoxes of the type noted by Rubens. 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 Oct 11 14:05:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9B45BR20960 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 14:05:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9B455t20956 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 14:05:06 +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 ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 21:05:23 -0700 Message-ID: <01ff01c03338$4ae6d1c0$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Godel, Escher and Bridge Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 20:59:54 -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: > > The logician Kurt Godel uncovered a paradox at the heart > of mathematics. Godel proved that any mathematical or > logical system was necessarily incomplete, since it could > be demonstrated that there were true statements that the system > was unable to prove. (And it was no use augmenting the system > by adding the true-but-unprovable statements to a revised > system as additional axioms, since the new improved system > would automatically generate new true statements that could not > be proved.) > > Most blmlers would be familiar with the art of M. C. Escher, > who specialised in portraying paradoxes (for example, two > hands drawing each other). > > The Bridge Laws also contain logical paradoxes. > Gôdel proved that within any *rigidly logical mathematical system* there are propositions (or questions) that cannot be proved or disproved on the basis of the axioms within that system. This is the so-called "incompleteness theorem." Leaving aside that it contains no mathematical axioms, I wouldn't call the Laws a rigidly logical system. :)) Marv mlfrench@writeme.com At Fresno Regional thru 10/15 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 11 16:46:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9B6jl921064 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 16:45:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9B6jft21060 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 16:45:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.84] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13jFdw-000PPv-00; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 07:45:37 +0100 Message-ID: <001401c0334f$113fca00$545908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Todd Zimnoch" , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Meaningless? - was Definitions: Convention Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 20:48:39 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott " The weak have one weapon: the errors of those who think they are strong." - Georges Bidault ----- Original Message ----- From: Todd Zimnoch To: Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 8:56 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Meaningless? - was Definitions: Convention > I don't understand what's dubious about it. The exposure of 1NT as > a psych and the meaning of it as being most likely a weak-two in clubs > is a consequence of the meanings assigned to the bids made in the system > used +=+ x.x./ K.x./ x.x.x./ A K Q x x 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 Wed Oct 11 17:30:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9B7UZS21098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:30:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f146.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.146]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9B7UUt21094 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:30:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 00:30:22 -0700 Received: from 172.155.30.43 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 07:30:22 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.155.30.43] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Meaningless? - was Definitions: Convention Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 00:30:22 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Oct 2000 07:30:22.0653 (UTC) FILETIME=[1D7FDED0:01C03355] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Grattan Endicott" >----- Original Message ----- >From: Todd Zimnoch >To: >Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 8:56 AM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Meaningless? - was Definitions: Convention > > > > I don't understand what's dubious about it. The exposure of 1NT >as > > a psych and the meaning of it as being most likely a weak-two in >clubs > > is a consequence of the meanings assigned to the bids made in the >system > > used > >+=+ x.x./ K.x./ x.x.x./ A K Q x x x +=+ What's the consequence of this? -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 Oct 11 19:14:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9B9DEP21168 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 19:13:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9B9Cdt21163 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 19:12:40 +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 e9B9CH908287 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 10:12:17 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id e9AEsAn09637 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:54:10 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:54:10 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 PAA14996 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:54:09 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id PAA09960 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:54:08 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:54:08 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200010101454.PAA09960@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Richard Willey" > To: > Subject: RE: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp > > >Really? Why do you think he is playing the Multi? > > > > The main advantage of the Multi is that it confuses poor > > opponents. Why are you offering any sympathy whatever to someone > > who is > > playing the Multi and managed to confuse his opponents? > > Am I alone in taking strong objection to statements like from law > makers? Did David Stevenson write this? Is he now a law maker? The view of this ruling expressed by David, John Probst, and others (including me) is one I expect most players agree with, whether or not they are players of confusing systems/conventions. Perhaps the players on RGB can give us a different perspective on this. I have seem so many auctions where the partner of the 2D opener guesses opener's suit on the basis of opponents auction and guesses wrong. 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 Oct 11 19:51:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9B9odw21206 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 19:50:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9B9oWt21200 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 19:50:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-58.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.58]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA21909 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:50:22 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39E32B0D.E5ABFD31@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:43:25 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Question References: <200010092326.QAA19365@mailhub.irvine.com> <001001c032bc$756b9880$b359073e@D457300> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > DWS wrote: > > > Of course, what the ACBL should actually do is find out whether the > A- > > pair is getting less than 40%, and if so they should balance the A+ > > pair. No, I am not serious ... > > It seems to me that what they might do is consider what "should" happen > when a pair averaging 70% plays against a pair averaging 40%. > Presumably, the 70% pair is expected to get, on average, 30% more on any > given board than the 40% pair (after all, that is what they have been > doing on all the other boards). If this were to happen, the 70% pair > would get 65% and the 40% pair would get 35%. Why not, then, leave the > 70% pair with their session average, and give the offenders the 35% that > they "would have got" against this pair? > > David Burn > London, England > It's even worse ! In order to score 70% overall, the one pair should be scoring 80% against the 40% pair. In order to score 40% overall, the other pair should be scoring 20% against the 70% pair. is it normal that this balances ? let's see 80 = 70 + (50-40) and 20 = 40 - (70-50) add them and you have indeed that 100 = 70-70 + 40-40 + 50+50 yep, works all the time So perhaps the A+ should be 80/20 in this case. No, I am not being serious ! -- 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 Oct 11 19:51:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9B9oiK21210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 19:50:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9B9oat21205 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 19:50:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-58.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.58]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA21959 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:50:31 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39E32C82.4E1EAED1@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:49:38 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] the Visitor (was : Ruling in Antwerp) References: <3.0.6.32.20001010124542.007eb5d0@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: > > (well, is Antwerp on Earth ?)(*) > > (*) sorry, Herman, I think your co-citizens went one step too far this > Sunday. Time to do something drastic. > For the uninitiated, Alain is referring to the 33.3% of my co-inhabitants (don't want to call them citizens) who voted for an extreme-right-wing party that would be booed of in Austria. We used to have a joke here that it was unable to play bridge in Antwerp, since one person at the table had voted VlaamsBlok. We played three-handed "hearts" instead. Now that one has gone too. I'm off to Beta Pictoris. Maybe they inderstand my bidding. (all together now : not even there, Herman) -- 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 Oct 11 22:34:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9BCWCk21370 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 22:32:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9BCW5t21366 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 22:32:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-22.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.22]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA28868 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 14:31:59 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39E44383.9D857201@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:40:03 +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] Scoring Question References: <200010101639.MAA09341@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: > > > As an aside, as David Burn has said, the "equity" way of calculating > artificial scores would be to consider the session scores of _both_ > pairs. If an average pair meets another average pair, equity is > 50/50. (Of course we award the required 60/40.) If a 70% pair meets > an average pair, equity is 70/30. Similarly, if an average pair meets > a 30% pair, equity is also 70/30. I'd have to work out a formula to > calculate equity when a 70% pair meets a 30% pair, but it must be in > the neighborhood of 80/20 or 85/15. (Herman?) > 90/10 !! -- 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 Oct 11 22:48:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9BCm0221392 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 22:48:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9BClst21387 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 22:47:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.0.ap (resu)) id OAA14753; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 14:47:32 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id OAA11796; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 14:47:45 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001011145802.008b08f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 14:58:02 +0200 To: "Todd Zimnoch" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Godel, Escher and Bridge In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id e9BClvt21388 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 20:25 10/10/00 PDT, you wrote: > If I remember my Gödel correctly, he doesn't imply that paradoxes >must exist other than something will be true which you can't prove. His >proof also requires that the axiomatic system you are using is >consistent. That is, there's no statement P provably correct in the >system where !P is also provably correct. Bridge law isn't even that >far that it can be subject to the incompleteness theorem. :) Our goal is >to get it there! AG : Gödel essentially proved that any 'powerful enough' reasoning system was either inconsistent (contained contradictory assertions) or incomplete (contained unprovable true assertions). Richard's message tells us that TFLB is of the first kind. I'm not otherwised surprised. 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 Oct 12 01:31:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9BFR1U21517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 01:27:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9BFQst21513 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 01:26:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp182-113.worldonline.nl [195.241.182.113]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id CEE8F36BCF; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:26:32 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <015d01c03397$05a74360$71b6f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "John Probst" , Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 16:02:44 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I just jumbed in so I don't know where this discussion started, nor where it will bring us, but this example doesn't seem that complicated. The score should be 480 to south. And I don't see anything in the laws contradicting or even disputing this. Yes we have to assume that east won a trick with the spade jack and has to transfer that trick according to law 64A2 (we assume that the claim was done after the revoke had become established). I have started the preparations for a new European TD-course possibly to be held in January next year and this might be a practise problem. If somebody wants to convince me that my answer is wrong please use laws. Mine are 79 (tricks won, which has to be done even when claims are involved) and 64A2. ton >>> >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. >>> > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 12 01:35:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9BFWTw21530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 01:32:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9BFWKt21526 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 01:32:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from p44s04a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.100.69] helo=pacific) by cobalt5-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13jNoX-000229-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 16:29:05 +0100 Message-ID: <002401c03397$f55f0fa0$456493c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200010102023.e9AKNUt20589@rgb.anu.edu.au> <01f201c03334$0cd0cb60$189c1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: [BLML] Re: authority (was Scoring Q) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 16:24:10 +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 5.00.2314.1300 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: Marvin L. French To: Sent: 11 October 2000 04:33 Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Question (long) +=+ Oh dear. We are drifting back into one of those futile discussions to do with authority. Let us not exacerbate feelings if we can avoid it. +=+ > > From: "Jens & Bodil" > > > Marvin L. French wrote ( 9 Oct 00): > > > > 3. L93C mentions that appeals (including those on a point of law) > > can be decided by the national authority. > > At that level, yes. Tentatively, for the moment. Any new > interpretations (not appealable) should be documented and forwarded to > the WBFLC for its scrutiny, since that body has final say over > interpretations of the Laws. > +=+ There exists a WBFLC ruling that Zonal Authorities make interim interpretations of the laws pending the issue at its meeting of the WBFLC 's final decision. +=+ > > > 4. The laws do not mention the authority of the WBFLC anywhere. > > That is because the WBFLC has decided that it would not be feasible to > have itself included in the appeals process. Just because the decision > of a national authority is final, binding, does not mean that a new > interpretation becomes a part of the Laws. Only the WBFLC's > concurrence can accomplish that. > +=+ I think this misstates the position. All NBOs in membership of the WBF have acknowledged the authority given in the By-laws of the WBF:- "ByLaws of the World Bridge Federation Article 2 - Membership 2.1 Organizations A National Contract Bridge Organization (hereinafter called the NCBO) of any country may apply for membership in the WBF and be elected thereto by the affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the Executive present at any meeting at which a quorum is present, provided that any NCBO, to be eligible to apply for membership shall: (a)................ (b)................ (c) undertake to comply with the Constitution and By-Laws of the WBF, (d) ................ etc. " [The Constitution provides for the establishment of committees and their responsibilities. The By-Laws require that the WBF Laws Committee 'shall interpret the laws'. The WBF does not pursue questions as to its authority and, I think, would be strongly averse to doing so. NBOs can be expected to fulfil their undertakings, or not. ] > > > 5. The WBFLC does not promulgate its interpretations, e.g. the > > "Code of Practice", by decreeing that it is now as valid as the laws > > are throughout all organizations associated with the WBF. Instead, > > it asks the zonal and national organizations to consider > > implementing it. > > The Code of Practice for Appeals Committees, to give its full title, > was not developed and promulgated by the WBFLC, but by the Gang of > Lausanne. +=+ This statement lacks the accuracy of fact. The CoP was promulgated by the WBF Executive as the work of the said gangsters, and subsequently reissued in Europe by the EBL. It was a conscious decision of the WBF that the CoP would be better received if sent out as a recommendation rather than imposed. +=+ > > That is why it is optional. It not "as valid as the Laws," > but consists mostly of procedures to be used in appeals, which the > Laws do not address. An illegal section of it that does conflict with > the Laws has been okayed (not by the LC, but by the Executive > Council(?), for use in WBF events on a trial basis, and others are > trying it out, but the Laws remain unchanged. The ACBL is an > "organization associated with the WBF," and it has not adopted the > CoP. > > > > All of these points seem to indicate that the WBFLC itself does not > > share your opinion that it has the sole authority to interpret the > > laws. > > > I disagree. Let Ton Kooijman of the WBFLC give his opinion. I think > you will find he agrees with me. > +=+ I think it is the kind of discussion neither he nor I would wish to be sucked into. If you read the WBFLC minutes from Hammamet on, you will find some evidence that the committee is aware that member NBOs have contracted to recognize its status as the final authority. But contracts are sometimes broken and there is no obligation upon a plaintiff to pursue the offender. +=+ > > > The DBF Laws Commission, which I chair, is the ultimate authority > for > > interpreting the laws within the DBF. If we issue an interpretation > > on a point of law and the WBFLC happens to disagree, our > > interpretation, not the WBFLC's, is what counts in the DBF. > > I presume then, that the DBF, like the ACBL, is not living up to what > it agreed to when joining the WBF, which is to abide by the WBF > Constitution and its By-Laws. > > > We try > > to stay abreast of the WBFLC's opinions, but we reserve the right > > not to implement them. That is certainly fully consistent with the > > by-laws of the DBF, and I hope that it is also fully acknowledged by > > the EBL and the WBF. > +=+ Private griefs. Let us not intrude. I am allowed a slight shudder though, when I contemplate the possibility of 138? different law books around the globe. ~ 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 Oct 12 05:02:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9BJ1Jr21714 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 05:01:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9BJ1Dt21710 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 05:01:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA03443; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:01:03 -0700 Message-Id: <200010111901.MAA03443@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 "Wed, 11 Oct 2000 16:02:44 PDT." <015d01c03397$05a74360$71b6f1c3@kooijman> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:01:02 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ton wrote: > I just jumbed in so I don't know where this discussion started, nor where it > will bring us, but this example doesn't seem that complicated. The score > should be 480 to south. And I don't see anything in the laws contradicting > or even disputing this. Yes we have to assume that east won a trick with the > spade jack and has to transfer that trick according to law 64A2 (we assume > that the claim was done after the revoke had become established). > > I have started the preparations for a new European TD-course possibly to be > held in January next year and this might be a practise problem. If somebody > wants to convince me that my answer is wrong please use laws. Mine are 79 > (tricks won, which has to be done even when claims are involved) and 64A2. Hi, Ton, I don't know how much of the discussion you read, so I'll sum it up for you (at least the part I was involved in). First of all, the example below is mine, and I did intend for the revoke to be established---this requires South to play on a little while before claiming. My original description erred in leaving this out. My feeling was that South should get +480, but the most vigorous dissenter said that the second trick transfer of Law 64A2 requires East to "win" a trick with the jack, and L44 implies that a player wins a trick only by contributing the highest trump or the highest card of the suit led, which would not apply if no cards are actually played to a trick (e.g. after a claim). Thus, in his view, although E-W would get the score for the jack of spades (before the revoke penalty), neither E nor W would have been considered to "win" the trick (because of the claim), and therefore the second trick cannot be transferred. The example below is a fairly simple example, in that we know that if the hand were played out, East would always win a trick with the jack of spades no matter how the play went. The original case was more complicated in that the play after the claim could have gone several ways, and it's about equally probable that the revoker would or would not have won a trick with a card he could have played to the revoke trick. Hope this helps, -- Adam > >>> >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. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 12 07:39:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9BLcgE21816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 07:38:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9BLcZt21812 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 07:38:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp182-83.worldonline.nl [195.241.182.83]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id B63E536BC6; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 23:39:47 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001401c033ca$f2ae6660$53b6f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 23:33:37 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Yes, your explanation is what I understood already. So my answer is that we have to assume that east won a trick with spade J etc. That is why I referred to 79 (A) where the job is done to establish the tricks won (by both sides). I really don't see why anybody wants to complicate this. If we read 68C in a claim there still remain tricks to be won by a side; in this case the trick with the J of spades will be won by east. On the other hand I agree that there are much more complicated situations where the laws seem difficult to apply, probably your previous example is one of them. So 480, we all agree? ton -----Original Message----- From: Adam Beneschan To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: adam@irvine.com Date: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 9:25 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke > >Ton wrote: > >> I just jumbed in so I don't know where this discussion started, nor where it >> will bring us, but this example doesn't seem that complicated. The score >> should be 480 to south. And I don't see anything in the laws contradicting >> or even disputing this. Yes we have to assume that east won a trick with the >> spade jack and has to transfer that trick according to law 64A2 (we assume >> that the claim was done after the revoke had become established). >> >> I have started the preparations for a new European TD-course possibly to be >> held in January next year and this might be a practise problem. If somebody >> wants to convince me that my answer is wrong please use laws. Mine are 79 >> (tricks won, which has to be done even when claims are involved) and 64A2. > >Hi, Ton, > >I don't know how much of the discussion you read, so I'll sum it up >for you (at least the part I was involved in). > >First of all, the example below is mine, and I did intend for the >revoke to be established---this requires South to play on a little >while before claiming. My original description erred in leaving this >out. > >My feeling was that South should get +480, but the most vigorous >dissenter said that the second trick transfer of Law 64A2 requires >East to "win" a trick with the jack, and L44 implies that a player >wins a trick only by contributing the highest trump or the highest >card of the suit led, which would not apply if no cards are actually >played to a trick (e.g. after a claim). Thus, in his view, although >E-W would get the score for the jack of spades (before the revoke >penalty), neither E nor W would have been considered to "win" the >trick (because of the claim), and therefore the second trick cannot be >transferred. > >The example below is a fairly simple example, in that we know that if >the hand were played out, East would always win a trick with the jack >of spades no matter how the play went. The original case was more >complicated in that the play after the claim could have gone several >ways, and it's about equally probable that the revoker would or would >not have won a trick with a card he could have played to the revoke >trick. > >Hope this helps, > > -- Adam > > >> >>> >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. >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Oct 12 08:01:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9BM1HD21841 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 08:01:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9BM1Bt21837 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 08:01:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp182-156.worldonline.nl [195.241.182.156]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 0C27E36B45; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 00:02:30 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001b01c033ce$1bffc380$53b6f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Grattan Endicott" , Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: authority (was Scoring Q) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 23:56:20 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >. . >"Anyone who in discussion relies upon >authority uses not his understanding but >his memory." (Leonardo da Vinci) > And possibly his common sense ton >> > All of these points seem to indicate that the WBFLC itself does not >> > share your opinion that it has the sole authority to interpret the >> > laws. I think that the WBFLC has the authority to interpret the laws (that is in the by laws). And we do not need a proof of the quality of Godel to understand that if there are other authorities who claim to have the same authority things might go wrong. Well, to be honest I do not care that much, though I would object my own NBO to make such a claim, hopefully with some effect. And formally spoken a NBO using an interpretation not supported by the WBF(LC) might play another game, or is this a statement Grattan wanted to avoid? ton >> > >> I disagree. Let Ton Kooijman of the WBFLC give his opinion. I think >> you will find he agrees with me. >> I don't know what to agree with? Can anybody help me with giving me a simple statement to be approved? ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 12 08:26:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9BMPte21866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 08:25:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9BMPnt21862 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 08:25:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9BFYv001993 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 15:34:57 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Question Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 15:27:51 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200010092326.QAA19365@mailhub.irvine.com> <001001c032bc$756b9880$b359073e@D457300> In-Reply-To: <001001c032bc$756b9880$b359073e@D457300> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00101115345704.01776@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, David Burn wrote: > DWS wrote: > > > Of course, what the ACBL should actually do is find out whether the > A- > > pair is getting less than 40%, and if so they should balance the A+ > > pair. No, I am not serious ... > > It seems to me that what they might do is consider what "should" happen > when a pair averaging 70% plays against a pair averaging 40%. > Presumably, the 70% pair is expected to get, on average, 30% more on any > given board than the 40% pair (after all, that is what they have been > doing on all the other boards). If this were to happen, the 70% pair > would get 65% and the 40% pair would get 35%. Why not, then, leave the > 70% pair with their session average, and give the offenders the 35% that > they "would have got" against this pair? The math here is not right. The 70% pair should get 30% more against any given opponents than the 40% pair does, but here you are comparing the expected result of the epxert pair against novice opponents to the expected result of the novice pair against expert opponents. If a 40% pair plays another 40% pair, then obviously both pairs expect 50%. If a 40% pair plays an average pair, the 40% pair expects 40%, since that is what it sverages against all its opponents. Likewise, if a 70% pair plays an average pair the 70% pair expects 70%. Adding the margins, when the 70% pair plays the 40% pair, the 70% pair expects 80%; it needs this 80% against the weak pair to average out the 60% scores that it gets against 60% pairs and get 70%. Thus, in theory, you should add the margins to get the expected score. Another situatuion in which this applies is a forfeited IMP match. The winning team scores the highest of +3 IMPs, or its average in other matches, or the average of the loser's opponents in matches actually played. However, if a +6 team plays a -=6 team, the expected score is +12 to the better team, not the +6 it receives in case of a forfeit -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 12 10:59:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9C0wxT21974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 10:59:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9C0wrt21970 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 10:58:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2iveter.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.117.219]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA09031 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 20:58:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001011205651.01210b68@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 20:56:51 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp In-Reply-To: <003801c03317$c8f15f20$7a14073e@D457300> References: <000201c03218$84d30640$66d336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <39E2EE47.E984E170@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:11 AM 10/11/2000 +0100, David B wrote: >In questions of "misbid or misexplanation", there is a burden of proof >placed on the side making a call to show that it has been explained >correctly according to their system (but that it was an error according >to that system). How heavy that burden is depends on the standards of >disclosure required in the event being played. When East bids 3H in the >auction: > >West North East South > 2D (Multi) >Dble 2H 3H > >and it transpires that East has five or six fewer hearts than West >expected, the burden of proof will vary enormously depending on context. >In a locale where the players are supposed to be experienced and the >Multi is a common phenomenon, East-West would be expected to be 100% >certain of their agreements - so that, unless they could show strong >evidence that 3H was in fact natural according to their methods, there >would be a presumption of misexplanation (per Law 75D). But if the >players are known to be inexperienced and the Multi is something with >which they as a partnership rarely have to cope, then one would be far >less inclined to say that a man who failed to alert 3H had failed to >explain his side's methods - for there almost certainly are no agreed >methods for him to explain. Although we end up in the same general place here, I would not agree with your formulation that the burden of proof varies with the context. Rather, the burden is more or less constant, but the context does provide evidence which may be relevant to the determination one way or the other. >Having said that, I feel that Herman has come in for a great deal of >grossly unfair criticism for airing this case, and for soliciting >opinions. Some of those opinions have paid far too much attention to the >actual hand, and far too little to the legal principles involved. It is >quite ridiculous to say that the purpose of playing a Multi is to >confuse the opponents - it is not. The purpose of playing a Multi is, as >others have pointed out, to increase the number of hands which your >system can (or can hope to) describe by opening the bidding. It is also >ridiculous to criticise a man for asking whether or not the actions >taken by a pair were potentially in breach of Law or regulation - after >all, that is one of the purposes of this list. The question is a >perfectly valid one, and Herman should not have been attacked on all >sides for asking it. Four spades on the hand in question was probably >not a very sensible bid, but that is not what we are here to judge >either. I hope that this issue may now be laid to rest, since it has >generated vast amounts of heat and very little light. > I agree that Herman has come in for some unjustified criticism in this thread, including some off-target and irrelevant comments concerning his motives for playing Multi and his 4S call. But I don't agree that he has been criticized for asking a question or raising a concern. The bulk of the criticism has been directed at his bizarre interpretation of the Laws. As far as I can tell, he is the only student attending the de Wael school. In truth, Herman has repeatedly expressed the opinion that as a practical matter, there is no such thing as a mis-bid: that the fact of a clear intention on the part of a bidder establishes the existence of a partnership agreement, uncontestable by any combination of circumstance or documentation (i.e., "evidence"). Because this interpretation is so clearly at variance with the Laws, one is forced to speculate as to his purpose. Two possibilities suggest themselves: one is that as a director, Herman has been placed too often in the position of having to sort out this type of problem, and really thinks that a cleaner "bright line" test will be more practical to apply. The other possibility is that he labors under the not uncommon delusion that as a player, he is entitled to know what the opponents actually intend by their actions, and that if that is not the actual meaning of "full disclosure", then it certainly should be. Firmly wedded to his vision of a better game of bridge, he is willing to bend, stretch, and ultimately ignore the Laws in the service of his ideal. It is primarily that determination to pursue his view of how the game should be played, even in contravention of the Laws, that has earned his views a remarkably unanimous rebuke. 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 Oct 12 11:58:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9C1w0u22017 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 11:58:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9C1vrt22012 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 11:57:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ives7l.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.112.245]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA13275 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 21:57:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001011215632.0121528c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 21:56:32 -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: <015d01c03397$05a74360$71b6f1c3@kooijman> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:02 PM 10/11/2000 +0200, Ton wrote: >I just jumbed in so I don't know where this discussion started, nor where it >will bring us, but this example doesn't seem that complicated. The score >should be 480 to south. And I don't see anything in the laws contradicting >or even disputing this. Yes we have to assume that east won a trick with the >spade jack and has to transfer that trick according to law 64A2 (we assume >that the claim was done after the revoke had become established). > >I have started the preparations for a new European TD-course possibly to be >held in January next year and this might be a practise problem. If somebody >wants to convince me that my answer is wrong please use laws. Mine are 79 >(tricks won, which has to be done even when claims are involved) and 64A2. > >ton I was the dissenting party in this thread, and am delighted to engage the debate on the basis of the Laws. Nobody else seemed very interested in that aspect of the problem at the time. Bear in mind that the original problem was not the one Adam presented, but a case in which the East player might or might not have won a subsequent trick, depending on which of two apparently equivalent cards South would have led to trick 12 (i.e., had he not conceded). But to the disgust of nearly everyone involved in the problem, I was willing to say that the same argument applies in Adam's case. Law 64A2: 2. Offending Player Did Not Win Revoke Trick and the trick on which the revoke occurred was not won by the offending player, then, if the offending side won that or any subsequent trick, (penalty) after play ceases, one trick is transferred to the non-offending side; also, if an additional trick was subsequently won by the offending player with a card that he could legally have played to the revoke trick, one such trick is transferred to the non-offending side. The law says that if the offending _side_ wins a subsequent trick, then there is a one-trick penalty. It further states that if a certain highly specific factual condition is satisfied, then an additional penalty trick may be awarded. It is clear from usage in multiple contexts (including your reference to L79) that "tricks won by a side" applies both to actual tricks won during normal play and to "tricks" awarded through adjudication or agreed to as a matter of claims or concessions. But L44 is quite specific in describing how a _player_ can win a trick: there must be four cards played in sequence, and the trick is won by the player contributing the highest trump or, failing that, the highest card in the suit led. It is not factually correct to say that a player has won a trick "with a card that he could legally have played to the revoke trick" when no such trick and no such card were ever actually played. Nothing in the language of L64A2 requires or even authorizes us to award a second penalty trick if the conditions in the predicate are not met. I commend Adam for his grudging concession earlier in the discussion that I might well be right as to the precise meaning of the relevant legal language. His counter-point was that the result of such a literal reading was so bizarre and contrary to "the essence of the game" that we are entitled to assume that it could not have been the intention of the law-makers to create such a situation, and to rule in accordance with their presumed intentions, whatever the Laws actually say. Is that about right, Adam? To which I respond 1) there is nothing inherently bizarre or inequitable about the result, except that which is inherent in the arbitrary character of the penalties for revokes. Sometimes one trick is awarded, and sometimes two, with no obvious connection to the magnitude of the crime or the advantage gained thereby. C'est la vie. 2) The "essence of the game" is defined by the Laws themselves, however imperfectly. If those who are in a position to write the Laws feel that the game would be improved by changing the language, then they should act to do so. Until then, the highest standard of adjudication should be the precise, consistent, and unbiased application of the language of the Laws as written. For any of us (even Grattan) to presume a special understanding of the Lawmakers' intentions, as distinct from their output, is to court chaos, a la the deWael School or Bobby Wolff's Active Ethics. 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 Oct 12 16:17:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9C6GR522219 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 16:16:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9C6GKt22215 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 16:16:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis148.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.148]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.1999.06.13.00.20) with ESMTP id <0G2B00CBY0300U@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 08:16:15 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 08:16:11 +0200 From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke In-reply-to: <001401c033ca$f2ae6660$53b6f1c3@kooijman> X-Sender: Richard.Bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de To: ton kooijman , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: adam@irvine.com Message-id: <5.0.0.25.0.20001012074502.009ed9f0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 23:33 11.10.2000 +0200, ton kooijman wrote: >Yes, your explanation is what I understood already. So my answer is that we >have to assume that east won a trick with spade J etc. That is why I >referred to 79 (A) where the job is done to establish the tricks won (by >both sides). I really don't see why anybody wants to complicate this. If we >read 68C in a claim there still remain tricks to be won by a side; in this >case the trick with the J of spades will be won by east. >On the other hand I agree that there are much more complicated situations >where the laws seem difficult to apply, probably your previous example is >one of them. So 480, we all agree? I see some problems here. (we had this discussion a year ago here). 1) How sure it has to be that East wins the trick with the "revoke"-card? Maybe? Sure? Probably? Or is even unlikely enough? has the declarer to manage it? How careful can the defense be? Is lazy right? Or even irrational? Some sorts of crocodil coups in this situations seems quite likely. The problem I see here is, that declarer might get an advantage by claiming instead of playing on. He might have a problem which would be solved by claiming. This doesnt seem right to me. On the other hand I see the problem that claiming might lose tricks (see the original example). ************ I just digged in the archive and found my case (quotation of the discussion "claim and revoke" in June 1999 BLML): """" The problem is if you give a two-trick penalty for this revoke you are give a player an advantage if he is claiming instead of playing on. He might get more tricks by claiming than by playing. BUT that is exactly what the laws didnt want by writing 70A.: >> N >> S x >> H - >> D x >> C - >>W E >>S Q S - >>H Q H - >>D - D Q >>C - C Q >> South >> S x >> H - >> D - >> C s decl S contr NT, S on play concedes all tricks E already revoked once in D. Won up to now no trick in D. What should happen here? Best way for S would be to concede all the tricks!!!! (100% shot) to play on >>(S doesnt know who helds the high cards) """" *********** 2) a) Play ceases after a claim. L68D. b) L64A2 requires to win a trick with the card. I find it illogical to win tricks when play ceased. So this contradiction could be maybe solved by looking at the intention of the lawmakers. That leads me to 1). If there would be any reasonable intention the lawmakers surely would have solved 1) in a satisfactory way, but there is no law here. conclusion: L64A2 is in my opinion not available in L68D situations. the only thing to use is L64C here (still in my opinion of course). I think that is right because the penalty for a revoke is just to make life easy for the TDs. Just an standard adjustment. To reach equity in revoke cases, it should be enough to use 64D without further penalties. > 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. >-- 450. IMHO. Sorry. Ton: If you tell me to use L64C in L68D-situations than I will do that of course. But I dont think that this in the laws (and it would be probably optimal if the WBFLC would make a statement here). BUT: To use this interpretation I would need an answer to 1) (probability of winning the trick after play ceased). 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 Oct 12 17:19:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9C7Ie822262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 17:18:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9C7IXt22258 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 17:18:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA16574 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 09:18:29 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Oct 12 09:19:46 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 <01JV8TFDFTIW000PPS@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 09:18:02 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <4W5WX06Q>; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 09:14:48 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 09:17:29 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke To: "'Michael S. Dennis'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6B7@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 was the dissenting party in this thread, and am delighted > to engage the > debate on the basis of the Laws. Nobody else seemed very > interested in that > aspect of the problem at the time. > > > It is clear from usage in multiple contexts (including your > reference to > L79) that "tricks won by a side" applies both to actual > tricks won during > normal play and to "tricks" awarded through adjudication or > agreed to as a > matter of claims or concessions. But L44 is quite specific in > describing > how a _player_ can win a trick: there must be four cards played in > sequence, and the trick is won by the player contributing the > highest trump > or, failing that, the highest card in the suit led. To be honest I am not very delighted myself to discuss this. And if I could be sure that your position in this respect is unique I would not mind. But with more than 200 readers and many of them having the status and quality to convince others I feel obliged to react. That once in a while is my problem with Grattan's approach as well, expressing the fact that his and my opinion are just personal and have nothing to do with our positions in the law-interpreting-and-making-department. It doesn't work to fill the WBFLC-agenda with all the subjects somebody shows to have a dissenting opinion in, not willing to give it up. All I can say is that your reading of the laws in the case when a trick is won leads to the situation that after a claim nobody can decide the result on the board, because no tricks can be won after a claim. This sounds ridiculous. Law 68A makes clear that a claim is related to the play of future tricks where tricks are won (and lost) and L68C is more specific, saying that a statement has to be given about the way to win the tricks claimed. And in this example claimer is telling that he is losing a trick to the spade J (even if he does not say so). This makes it clear to me that your approach is wrong and of not more than an academic quality (which is a serious accusation in my language). To be honest, even when L68 would have been less clear, I would not have bought your view. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 12 18:29:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9C8SMM22330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 18:28:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9C8SFt22326 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 18:28:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.68] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13jdij-0009uq-00; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 09:28:09 +0100 Message-ID: <004101c03426$8f62eac0$9f5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "ton kooijman" Cc: "Grattan Endicott" , "bridge-laws" References: <001b01c033ce$1bffc380$53b6f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: authority (was Scoring Q) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 09:09:56 +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 "He that hath knowledge spareth his words" (Proverbs) ----- Original Message ----- From: ton kooijman To: Grattan Endicott ; Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 10:56 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: authority (was Scoring Q) > >. . > >"Anyone who in discussion relies upon > >authority uses not his understanding but > >his memory." (Leonardo da Vinci) > > > > And possibly his common sense > > ton > > > >> > All of these points seem to indicate that the WBFLC itself does not > >> > share your opinion that it has the sole authority to interpret the > >> > laws. > > > I think that the WBFLC has the authority to interpret the laws (that is in > the by laws). And we do not need > a proof of the quality of Godel to understand that if there are other > authorities who claim to have the same authority things might go wrong. > Well, to be honest I do not care that much, though I would object my own NBO > to make such a claim, hopefully with some effect. And formally spoken a NBO > using an interpretation not supported by the WBF(LC) might play another > game, or is this a statement Grattan wanted to avoid? > > ton > +=+ Oh, we agree. I am particularly disappointed to find a European NBO voting for the kind of anarchy that follows where each one is his own lawmaker; I have come to accept that there is a problem with our North American colleagues, and one that we (or future generations) can only hope to resolve with the passage of time, but I had believed the Rest of the World to be uncorrupted by it. In truth I do care about the difficulty, because I believe we should seek to play our game in harmony, which is not achieved if NBOs (or indeed subordinate Zones of the WBF) do not perform contracts to which they have put their signatures. But, as the servant of the WBF, I make efforts not to let these personal views disturb dutiful impartiality. ~ 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 Oct 12 21:38:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9CBav922458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 21:36:57 +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 e9CBaot22451 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 21:36:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-177.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.177]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA10441; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 13:36:45 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39E57B71.E98A976F@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 10:50:57 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws , Jan Boets Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp References: <000201c03218$84d30640$66d336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <39E2EE47.E984E170@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.20001011205651.01210b68@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Michael S. Dennis" wrote some words of wisdom. > > > > I agree that Herman has come in for some unjustified criticism in this > thread, including some off-target and irrelevant comments concerning his > motives for playing Multi and his 4S call. Thanks. > But I don't agree that he has > been criticized for asking a question or raising a concern. The bulk of the > criticism has been directed at his bizarre interpretation of the Laws. As > far as I can tell, he is the only student attending the de Wael school. > I have never intended this as an exmaple of the DeWael school, but I do see the parallels. > In truth, Herman has repeatedly expressed the opinion that as a practical > matter, there is no such thing as a mis-bid: that the fact of a clear > intention on the part of a bidder establishes the existence of a > partnership agreement, uncontestable by any combination of circumstance or > documentation (i.e., "evidence"). Not uncontestable, but indeed, my interpretation as to what constitutes evidence is far harsher than what seems to be the majority view. I have conceded that in this matter, there is clear evidence for the truth of "no agreement" and that this is what I was told at the table, so that there was not, in this case, any misinformation. > Because this interpretation is so clearly > at variance with the Laws, I don't see that this is so. The Laws do say that there has to be evidence to the contrary, no ? So how can I be at variance with the Laws. I am at variance with a majority interpretation of the strength of evidence, but not with the Laws, I strongly believe. > one is forced to speculate as to his purpose. > Why do you imply something as sinister as me having a purpose ? > Two possibilities suggest themselves: one is that as a director, Herman has > been placed too often in the position of having to sort out this type of > problem, and really thinks that a cleaner "bright line" test will be more > practical to apply. Exactly. Why should I need to plough through self-serving statements as to the meaning of a call when one meaning at least is as obvious as daylight : the hand itself ! > The other possibility is that he labors under the not > uncommon delusion that as a player, he is entitled to know what the > opponents actually intend by their actions, and that if that is not the > actual meaning of "full disclosure", then it certainly should be. Well, when one player truely intends a call to convey a certain meaning to his partner, is that not the meaning of this call ? If he labours under the mistaken impression that he has agreed with partner that this should be the meaning, is that not at least 50% of the evidence needed to say that it is the agreed meaning ? That is not relevant to the Antwerp case. In that one, I asked the wrong question. I asked what he intended it as, and he replied, a cue-bid. I should have asked if there was any possible agreement there, and indeed there was not. But in a more general sense, when a player intends to say something, is that not a first piece of evidence towards it being an agreement ? > Firmly > wedded to his vision of a better game of bridge, he is willing to bend, > stretch, and ultimately ignore the Laws in the service of his ideal. > I have such a good example for this, and I am bound not to reveal it yet, since it has gone to appeal. Unless Jan Boets allows me to do it, for it may well give him some clues as to how to rule on it. But yes, I believe it would be for the better of bridge, and I am willing to "bend" and "stretch" further than what you seem to be willing to do. As to "ignore", I'll just ignore that remark. I hope you can believe that I am merely trying to define "evidence", but that my grasp of the Law is as firm as it should be. > It is primarily that determination to pursue his view of how the game > should be played, even in contravention of the Laws, that has earned his > views a remarkably unanimous rebuke. > Remarkably unanimous indeed. I've never been so convinced that I was wrong. I'll write that again. It might make someone's sig file. I was wrong. Herman De Wael on blml 2000-10-12. -- 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 Oct 12 21:38:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9CBasc22455 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 21:36:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9CBakt22448 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 21:36:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-177.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.177]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA10399 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 13:36:39 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39E5778C.13A29749@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 10:34:20 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke References: <5.0.0.25.0.20001012074502.009ed9f0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hallo Richard, and Ton, who is certainly reading this thread, and all others who are not bored by it. Richard Bley wrote: > > > I see some problems here. (we had this discussion a year ago here). > > 1) How sure it has to be that East wins the trick with the "revoke"-card? > Maybe? > Sure? > Probably? > Or is even unlikely enough? > has the declarer to manage it? > How careful can the defense be? Is lazy right? Or even irrational? Some > sorts of crocodil coups in this situations seems quite likely. > > The problem I see here is, that declarer might get an advantage by claiming > instead of playing on. He might have a problem which would be solved by > claiming. This doesnt seem right to me. > On the other hand I see the problem that claiming might lose tricks (see > the original example). > ************ > I just digged in the archive and found my case (quotation of the discussion > "claim and revoke" in June 1999 BLML): > [good example snipped] Some of you seem to be under the impression that a two trick penalty is draconian. It isn't. In most cases, the two trick penalty only arises when one trick has actually been gained by the infraction. Then the gain for NOs is actually only 1 trick. One trick penalties are usually only 1 trick gains. Sometimes the Os has gained 2 tricks and the penalty is equal to equity. Sometimes the Os gain more than 2 tricks and we use L64C to restore equity. Sometimes the Os does not gain a trick and there is still a 2 trick penalty, and I believe this is the price we must pay for simple rules. As for the normal 1 trick gain, that too is a recompense for simple rules and it is still somewhat better to Os than the Burn rule. With that in mind, it is obvious that you must have a two trick penalty when after a claim, a particular trick is "won", whatever the literal sense of winning a trick. One can imagine lots of claims in which the highest trump makes a trick, at whatever time. One can imagine claims where either someone does not make a trick, and it is not transferred, and sometimes he does, and it is. The result is then the same. But only with the interpretation that Ton proposes. Which brings me back to your example, Richard. Indeed you are right that in this case, it depends on who makes a particular trick. Although claimer concedes all tricks, it can matter which he actually does. And indeed it is then better to concede than to claim on. However, how often does this arise ? And how often would claimer realize this ? And why should it bother us ? > """" > The problem is if you give a two-trick penalty for this revoke you are give > a player an advantage if he is claiming instead of playing on. He might get > more tricks by claiming than by playing. BUT that is exactly what the laws > didnt want by writing 70A.: > -- 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 Oct 12 23:51:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9CDols22621 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 23:50:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9CDoet22617 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 23:50:41 +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 PAA29981; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 15:48:49 +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 PAA21878; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 15:50:27 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001012160048.008c2570@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 16:00:48 +0200 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws , Jan Boets From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp In-Reply-To: <39E57B71.E98A976F@village.uunet.be> References: <000201c03218$84d30640$66d336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <39E2EE47.E984E170@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.20001011205651.01210b68@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >> In truth, Herman has repeatedly expressed the opinion that as a practical >> matter, there is no such thing as a mis-bid: that the fact of a clear >> intention on the part of a bidder establishes the existence of a >> partnership agreement, uncontestable by any combination of circumstance or >> documentation (i.e., "evidence"). > >Not uncontestable, but indeed, my interpretation as to what >constitutes evidence is far harsher than what seems to be >the majority view. AG : Herman told us himself that E/W were not to be expected to be very much fitted. this had to be taken into account. But I'm usually tempted to be quite harsh on those matters too. Perhaps this is why he always asks me to be an AC member :) >I have conceded that in this matter, there is clear evidence >for the truth of "no agreement" and that this is what I was >told at the table, so that there was not, in this case, any >misinformation. AG : that's what most of us said. However, it is a very peculiar case. The very severe line that Herman puts on seasoned pairs, meaning in practice that nothing short of the convention card or the system notes will be sound enough evidence, is good for me. It is easy to apply, fair, and the problems revert back where they originated from. But I think it shouldn't apply here. One specific Belgian problem is that very few have their convention cards ready when playing pairs tournaments. In countries where everybody does, a very succinct CC could be an indication of an unfitted pair, and a blank place on the CC could be an indication of 'no agreement'. In Belgium, you are always (as a TD or AC member, or as a player) wondering whether they are honest in pretending MB, perhaps more so than you should. I guess this is what happened to Herman, and also what happens in several other cases where a Belgian AC was too harsh in imposing MI penalties. Especially several ACs of which yours truly was a member. > >But in a more general sense, when a player intends to say >something, is that not a first piece of evidence towards it >being an agreement ? AG : nope. As I said earlier, throwing a bid at partner's face, believing that he should understand it, while there is in fact no reason that he should, is a common bridge error, even (and above all) among good players. So the evidence here is very small. >But yes, I believe it would be for the better of bridge, and >I am willing to "bend" and "stretch" further than what you >seem to be willing to do. AG : see above. I'm a part-time partisan of the De Wael School on this matter. 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 Oct 13 00:47:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9CEktN22674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 00:46:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9CEknt22670 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 00:46:50 +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 KAA14701 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 10:46:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA27820 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 10:46:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 10:46:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200010121446.KAA27820@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au 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 > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > But L44 is quite specific in describing > how a _player_ can win a trick: there must be four cards played in > sequence, and the trick is won by .... Sorry, Mike, but you are "assuming the converse" here. L44 states that _if_ there are four cards played in sequence (i.e., a normal trick), a specified one of those cards wins the trick. However, L44 in no way states, implies, or hints that this is the _only_ way to win a trick. L69A and 79A come to mind. (Do you see the 'as though' in L69A? This makes clear that there is no distinction between tricks "won" by having four cards actually played and "won" by virtue of a claim or concession.) Your distinction between tricks won by a side and by a player is quite creative, but I don't see any reason for it in the laws. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 13 01:07:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9CF78P22701 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 01:07:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9CF72t22697 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 01:07:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id LAA15973 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 11:06:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA27848 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 11:06:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 11:06:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200010121506.LAA27848@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au 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 > From: Richard Bley > The problem is if you give a two-trick penalty for this revoke you are give > a player an advantage if he is claiming instead of playing on. He might get > more tricks by claiming than by playing. BUT that is exactly what the laws > didnt want by writing 70A.: Perhaps I'm in a minority of one here, but I think L70A means "doubtful points _regarding the claim or claim statement_." Doubtful points regarding other infractions should still be resolved against the infractor. We want to _encourage_ claims and concessions. If a player occasionally gains an unexpected advantage -- after an opponent's infraction! -- from a claim or concession, what is wrong with that? I don't understand at all the apparent attitude that a claim or concession is something to be punished. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 13 01:15:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9CFFPT22719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 01:15:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9CFFLt22715 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 01:15:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot06.domain1.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ta635355 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 01:15:29 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-225-121.tmns.net.au ([203.54.225.121]) by mail1.bigpond.com (Claudes-Well-Rounded-MailRouter V2.9c 1/583733); 13 Oct 2000 01:15:28 Message-ID: <000e01c03467$9a5dfaa0$79e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 02:15:12 +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 Herman de Wael wrote: >Well, when one player truly intends a call to convey a >certain meaning to his partner, is that not the meaning of >this call ? I think the words "conveyed to him" in Law 75C are important. Law 75C explains what must be disclosed, and those three words indicate that the partner of the caller/player is to disclose only information that has been conveyed to him. If these three words weren't in Law 75C, Herman's argument would be stronger, but they are there, they aren't going to go away and thus Herman's view is not a popular 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 Fri Oct 13 01:17:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9CFHMb22731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 01:17:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9CFHGt22727 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 01:17:17 +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 IAA15714; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 08:17:10 -0700 Message-Id: <200010121517.IAA15714@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 "Thu, 12 Oct 2000 08:16:11 PDT." <5.0.0.25.0.20001012074502.009ed9f0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 08:17:12 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Bley wrote: > At 23:33 11.10.2000 +0200, ton kooijman wrote: > >Yes, your explanation is what I understood already. So my answer is that we > >have to assume that east won a trick with spade J etc. That is why I > >referred to 79 (A) where the job is done to establish the tricks won (by > >both sides). I really don't see why anybody wants to complicate this. If we > >read 68C in a claim there still remain tricks to be won by a side; in this > >case the trick with the J of spades will be won by east. > >On the other hand I agree that there are much more complicated situations > >where the laws seem difficult to apply, probably your previous example is > >one of them. So 480, we all agree? > > I see some problems here. (we had this discussion a year ago here). > > 1) How sure it has to be that East wins the trick with the "revoke"-card? > Maybe? > Sure? > Probably? > Or is even unlikely enough? > has the declarer to manage it? > How careful can the defense be? Is lazy right? Or even irrational? Some > sorts of crocodil coups in this situations seems quite likely. Here's an example of a case where I would *not* award the extra trick: 8 4 A 5 4 2 4 9 7 6 5 3 2 6 3 2 7 5 8 J 10 9 7 6 A K Q J 10 3 9 5 K J 10 A Q 8 4 A K Q J 10 9 K Q 3 8 7 6 2 ---- South plays in 4S. West cashes a high diamond and East follows with the 5, declarer with the 2. West leads another high diamond (for reasons that appealed to him at the time), North ruffs high, East falls asleep and pitches a heart. Declarer draws trumps, cashes two hearts to discover the break, then concedes the last two diamonds. The question is, does East win a trick with a card he could have legally played to the revoke trick---i.e. the good 9 of diamonds? It's conceivable, but it's utterly bizarre to suppose this would happen. West would have to duck when declarer leads the 8, 7, or 6 of diamonds from hand, "knowing" that partner had no more of the suit. So I think the penalty should be only one trick here. This is why Law 64A2 needs to be amended to clarify what happens after a claim. Probably, a statement that if, after a claim or concession, there is any "normal" line of play (consistent with the claim statement or assumed line) that results in the revoker winning a trick with a card he could have legally played to the revoke trick, then the extra trick is transferred, with "normal" being defined as in the claim laws. > The problem I see here is, that declarer might get an advantage by claiming > instead of playing on. He might have a problem which would be solved by > claiming. This doesnt seem right to me. > On the other hand I see the problem that claiming might lose tricks (see > the original example). . . . > > The problem is if you give a two-trick penalty for this revoke you are give > a player an advantage if he is claiming instead of playing on. He might get > more tricks by claiming than by playing. BUT that is exactly what the laws > didnt want by writing 70A.: You're right that we don't normally want to let players win extra tricks by claiming. But this isn't a "normal" situation because an opponent has revoked, and I have no objection to letting claimers gain "extra" tricks in that situation. It's important to make sure people make good claims and don't make bad ones, but it's even more important to make sure EVERYBODY FOLLOWS SUIT, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. -- 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 Oct 13 02:17:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9CGG7n22805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 02:16:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9CGG3t22801 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 02:16:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot06.domain1.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id na635687 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 02:08:36 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-225-121.tmns.net.au ([203.54.225.121]) by mail1.bigpond.com (Claudes-Colourful-MailRouter V2.9c 1/589795); 13 Oct 2000 02:08:35 Message-ID: <001301c0346f$05dda580$79e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Convention Cards [was: Ruling in Antwerp] Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 03:08:20 +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: >One specific Belgian problem is that very few have their >convention cards ready when playing pairs tournaments. Belgium is not alone - many countries have the same problem. I think that the main reason is that if a country has a CC that takes too long to fill in, then people naturally will not fill it in. Admittedly I have never seen a Belgian CC, but I am confident that if it were smaller than it is, more pairs would fill it in. In Australia, a country where Convention Cards are widely used, the CC is small (i.e pocket-size) and can generally be completed in only a few minutes before play starts. I believe that Britain also has small widely-used CCs. American CCs on the other hand are much larger and tend not to be used. The WBF CC is the largest of all and is a special case - it is filled in before the event, but tends to be shunted aside during the game, being too bulky to fit on the table. I think that the WBF should have three levels of Systemic Submission for their events, namely: (1) The current WBF CC, redesigned (after all, it is 18 years old). (2) A standardised pocket-size "plain English" version of the WBF CC, designed to be kept on the table. This miniCC would have Opening Bids, BSCs and Card Play briefly summarised on the front (to minimise the need to flick the CC over), and could have Competitive Bidding and other useful bidding information outlined on the back. (3) Provision for an optional Full System summary which pairs can submit if they want to. The current WBF System Policy already allows for this. It would be helpful for appeals. As online submission of systems becomes more popular in the 21st Century, this third option will presumably take off. Advantages are: - at WBF events, players do not have to wade through a massive CC to find out fairly basic information. - administrators can more easily check CCs for BSCs etc. - players at WBF events will actually have a CC on the table, which sets a better example to countries where this doesn't happen. - the pocket-size WBF miniCC might become widely used in countries which have in the past not used CCs much. This is the strongest point in favour of my suggestion: it seems logical that the WBF should have a CC which countries can use. - the new version of the large WBF CC can be updated to include space for modern treatments which have arisen since 1982, such as Bergen Raises, Preemptive Jump Raises, Obvious Switch Principle, Smith/Reverse Smith, Suit Preference in the Trump Suit and so forth). Such expansion in the information on the big CC would be balanced by the fact that players would generally refer to the miniCC. - at WBF events, "finding out what the opponents' cardplay signals are" would become much easier than it currently is. 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 Oct 13 02:39:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9CGdk322827 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 02:39:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9CGddt22822 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 02:39:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis199.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.199]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.1999.06.13.00.20) with ESMTP id <0G2B00IAZSXXBL@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 18:39:35 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 18:39:31 +0200 From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: [BLML] Convention Cards [was: Ruling in Antwerp] In-reply-to: <001301c0346f$05dda580$79e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> X-Sender: Richard.Bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de To: Peter Gill , BLML Message-id: <5.0.0.25.0.20001012183143.00a5b030@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: >I think that the main reason is that if a country has a CC >that takes too long to fill in, then people naturally will not >fill it in. Admittedly I have never seen a Belgian CC, >but I am confident that if it were smaller than it is, >more pairs would fill it in. In Germany we have a CC which is very small indeed and very fast filled out. Anyway I dont like them because a) the players are not able to proof their system (to deny misinformation) b) the opps are not properly informed. the smaller the CC the smaller is the gain by using them. The use of CC depends on tournament level. In club level CC are only with standard pairs in greater tournaments they are common (good standard partnerships often with WBF, others with the small one). An experienced partnership who uses the small CC is IMHO using an unfair advantage over other pairs, espec when they play strange systems. In junior camps hte usage of the WBF-CC was quite common. Sometimes they just written in some words, but playing against them at least I knew that they dont have many agreements. In the small CC you cannot see this. 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 Oct 13 10:45:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9D0hSk23315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 10:43:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9D0hKt23311 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 10:43:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.131] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13jswM-0008uA-00; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 01:43:15 +0100 Message-ID: <004d01c034ae$c7e4fa40$835608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." Cc: "bridge-laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6B7@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 01:37:04 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "A public-opinion poll is no substitute for thought." - Warren Buffett ----- Original Message ----- From: Kooijman, A. To: 'Michael S. Dennis' ; Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 8:17 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke .> > But L44 is quite specific in describing > > how a _player_ can win a trick: there must be four cards played in > > sequence, and the trick is won by the player contributing the > > highest trump or, failing that, the highest card in the suit led. > > > To be honest I am not very delighted myself to discuss this. And if I could > be sure that your position in this respect is unique I would not mind. But > with more than 200 readers and many of them having the status and quality to > convince others I feel obliged to react. That once in a while is my problem > with Grattan's approach as well, expressing the fact that his and my opinion > are just personal and have nothing to do with our positions in the > law-interpreting-and-making-department. It doesn't work to fill the > WBFLC-agenda with all the subjects somebody shows to have a dissenting > opinion in, not willing to give it up. > +=+ I see I got a mention! I am not sure, however, what my 'approach' is said to be. The WBFLC has required that, unless we are quoting the minuted discussion of the WBFLC, it is made clear that opinions of any of us are personal opinions. From time to time I have had a reminder from within the membership of the WBFLC that the time has arrived to say this once again. The WBFLC has also minuted that for interim interpretations as to the meaning of laws, where there is no recorded WBFLC decision, an NBO should refer to its Zonal Authority pending a decision by the WBFLC in a meeting. My own view is that it is desirable to get a decision from our committee when we meet if there is a matter on which there is any significant doubt, especially as the committee has taken a position that it does not want the law to be determined henceforward by the opinion of an individual. Post EK, who tended to abrogate to himself the power to prescribe the law, it has reasserted itself strongly - for fear, it seems, that it would find the ground taken from it by the modern speed of communication if I, or you, or Kojak, or any, took to publishing statements as Edgar used to do, without a restriction on their status. +=+ > > All I can say is that your reading of the laws in the case when a trick is > won leads to the situation that after a claim nobody can decide the result > on the board, because no tricks can be won after a claim. This sounds > ridiculous. Law 68A makes clear that a claim is related to the play of > future tricks where tricks are won (and lost) and L68C is more specific, > saying that a statement has to be given about the way to win the tricks > claimed. And in this example claimer is telling that he is losing a trick to > the spade J (even if he does not say so). > > This makes it clear to me that your approach is wrong and of not more than > an academic quality (which is a serious accusation in my language). To be > honest, even when L68 would have been less clear, I would not have bought > your view. > +=+ My opinion is the same as yours. I do not read Law 44E/F as excluding the fact that tricks are won or lost by a side as the outcome of a claim or concession within the terms of Law 68 (which explicitly uses the words 'a contestant will win' and 'a contestant will lose'). Personally I would not consider there is any 'significant doubt' to take to the WBFLC in this, and it does not sound as though you think even the briefest time would be well spent on it either. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 13 11:03:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9D139A23345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 11:03:09 +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-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 e9D12xt23336 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 11:03:00 +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 13jtFK-0004Nd-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 02:02:53 +0100 Message-ID: <9Za7IVAi6l55EwCW@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 02:00:18 +0100 To: Bridge Laws From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] the Visitor (was : Ruling in Antwerp) References: <3.0.6.32.20001010124542.007eb5d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <39E32C82.4E1EAED1@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <39E32C82.4E1EAED1@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 S Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In message <39E32C82.4E1EAED1@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >alain gottcheiner wrote: >> >> (well, is Antwerp on Earth ?)(*) >> >> (*) sorry, Herman, I think your co-citizens went one step too far this >> Sunday. Time to do something drastic. >> > >For the uninitiated, Alain is referring to the 33.3% of my >co-inhabitants (don't want to call them citizens) who voted >for an extreme-right-wing party that would be booed of in >Austria. > >We used to have a joke here that it was unable to play >bridge in Antwerp, since one person at the table had voted >VlaamsBlok. > >We played three-handed "hearts" instead. Now that one has >gone too. German Whist I think Herman. (2 players, 13 cards each, 13 pick and discards each and then play for 13 tricks). There's no bidding which is obviously an advantage :)) > >I'm off to Beta Pictoris. Maybe they inderstand my bidding. > >(all together now : not even there, Herman) -- 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 Fri Oct 13 11:03:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9D139D23344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 11:03:09 +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-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 e9D12xt23337 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 11:03:00 +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 13jtFK-0004Ne-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 02:02:53 +0100 Message-ID: <$Z67IZAi7l55Ewjm@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 02:01:22 +0100 To: Bridge Laws From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp References: <000201c03218$84d30640$66d336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <39E2EE47.E984E170@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.20001011205651.01210b68@pop.mindspring.com> <39E57B71.E98A976F@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <39E57B71.E98A976F@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 S Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In message <39E57B71.E98A976F@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes snip >> > >Remarkably unanimous indeed. I've never been so convinced >that I was wrong. > >I'll write that again. It might make someone's sig file. > >I was wrong. Herman De Wael on blml 2000-10-12. > > I'll bite. -- >I've never been so convinced >that I was wrong. HdW 12th Oct 2000 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 Fri Oct 13 11:52:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9D1poV23416 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 11:51:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9D1pVt23412 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 11:51:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13ju0C-0003f8-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 01:51:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 13:03:46 +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: <015d01c03397$05a74360$71b6f1c3@kooijman> <3.0.1.32.20001011215632.0121528c@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20001011215632.0121528c@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: >I was the dissenting party in this thread, and am delighted to engage the >debate on the basis of the Laws. Nobody else seemed very interested in that >aspect of the problem at the time. > >Bear in mind that the original problem was not the one Adam presented, but >a case in which the East player might or might not have won a subsequent >trick, depending on which of two apparently equivalent cards South would >have led to trick 12 (i.e., had he not conceded). But to the disgust of >nearly everyone involved in the problem, I was willing to say that the same >argument applies in Adam's case. > >Law 64A2: >2. Offending Player Did Not Win Revoke Trick >and the trick on which the revoke occurred was not won by the offending >player, then, if the offending side won that or any subsequent trick, >(penalty) after play ceases, one trick is transferred to the non-offending >side; also, if an additional trick was subsequently won by the offending >player with a card that he could legally have played to the revoke trick, >one such trick is transferred to the non-offending side. > >The law says that if the offending _side_ wins a subsequent trick, then >there is a one-trick penalty. It further states that if a certain highly >specific factual condition is satisfied, then an additional penalty trick >may be awarded. > >It is clear from usage in multiple contexts (including your reference to >L79) that "tricks won by a side" applies both to actual tricks won during >normal play and to "tricks" awarded through adjudication or agreed to as a >matter of claims or concessions. But L44 is quite specific in describing >how a _player_ can win a trick: there must be four cards played in >sequence, and the trick is won by the player contributing the highest trump >or, failing that, the highest card in the suit led. It is not factually >correct to say that a player has won a trick "with a card that he could >legally have played to the revoke trick" when no such trick and no such >card were ever actually played. Nothing in the language of L64A2 requires >or even authorizes us to award a second penalty trick if the conditions in >the predicate are not met. I think this is a considerable and unnecessary stretch of L44. A claim is a speeding up process of the playing [and therefore winning] of tricks. L68 refers to a claim or concession of tricks. You are assuming that tricks not played in the traditional manner are not tricks but your view is at variance with the written Law. In view of that L64A2 refers to tricks and L68 makes it clear that tricks include those after a claim. >I commend Adam for his grudging concession earlier in the discussion that I >might well be right as to the precise meaning of the relevant legal >language. His counter-point was that the result of such a literal reading >was so bizarre and contrary to "the essence of the game" that we are >entitled to assume that it could not have been the intention of the >law-makers to create such a situation, and to rule in accordance with their >presumed intentions, whatever the Laws actually say. Is that about right, >Adam? > >To which I respond 1) there is nothing inherently bizarre or inequitable >about the result, except that which is inherent in the arbitrary character >of the penalties for revokes. Sometimes one trick is awarded, and sometimes >two, with no obvious connection to the magnitude of the crime or the >advantage gained thereby. C'est la vie. This is also incorrect. If you were to compare the results of revokes with the number of penalty tricks awarded then you would find a correlation. The penalty tricks is a very rough and ready attempt at some form of equity. Consider the simple case where declarer cashes a trump from dummy but revokes in hand. He has kept an extra trump which will often be worth an extra trick. In fact, if he later uses that trump to win a trick it will become a two-trick revoke. If, however, he uses it later to follow suit and not win the trick, it is a one-trick revoke. That seems a very fair distinction: he is penalised one extra trick when he is going to get an extra trick for the revoke! This correlation is important. How can you justify not keeping the same correlation when there is a claim? This is an end position: AK x - Jxx x - x - - xx - Qx xx A - x Declarer might do best to claim three tricks, but he does not. First he cashes the SA, discarding a club, then he cashes the SK, following suit and establishing the revoke. - x - J x - x - - - - Q xx A - - Now, when he plays it out, he gets four tricks, but two are taken away, one for a revoke, and one because he has a winning spade he should not have had. If the SQ and the SJ were exchanged, then the revoke has not gained this extra trick - and the revoke penalty is one trick fewer to compensate. According to what you are writing his best bet is to claim with two tricks left. Now, you would say the last two tricks are not "played" according to L44 and thus not "won". Well, I am sorry, they were claimed, and that is the same to me. It is not an arbitrary method of getting a different score: you claim *tricks*, and one of the claimed tricks makes it a two trick penalty under L64A2. In the example given it is clear that any other way of dealing with it would lead to injustice. L64C does not help, because equity with four tricks to go was three tricks: this is one position where the revoke would cost declarer two tricks overall. >2) The "essence of the game" is defined by the Laws themselves, however >imperfectly. If those who are in a position to write the Laws feel that the >game would be improved by changing the language, then they should act to do >so. Until then, the highest standard of adjudication should be the precise, >consistent, and unbiased application of the language of the Laws as >written. For any of us (even Grattan) to presume a special understanding of >the Lawmakers' intentions, as distinct from their output, is to court >chaos, a la the deWael School or Bobby Wolff's Active Ethics. Sounds great. However, not everyone agrees on the meaning of the Laws as written. If they did, BLML would have less purpose. In this case, for example, you appear to me to have misunderstood the meaning of the Laws, and you would be prepared to rule in a way the Laws do not support. your method is unjust, inequitable, and not what the Laws say. I also think that cheap digs at Active Ethics are somewhat out of line. Active Ethics is like Zero Tolerance: it is merely an attempt to get players and officials more aware of the 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 Fri Oct 13 12:13:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9D2DHB23443 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 12:13:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9D2D9t23435 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 12:13:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ives3u.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.112.126]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA26875 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 22:13:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001012213022.01213010@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 21:30:22 -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: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6B7@fdwag002s.fd.agro .nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:17 AM 10/12/2000 +0200, Ton wrote: >All I can say is that your reading of the laws in the case when a trick is >won leads to the situation that after a claim nobody can decide the result >on the board, because no tricks can be won after a claim. This sounds >ridiculous. It does sound ridiculous, but it is not a statement I have made, nor does it logically follow from my argument. I apologize if my posting failed to clarify that tricks can indeed be regarded as "won" by one side, when in fact they were never played or indeed were simply transferred as a result of a ruling. What has _not_ happened in those circumstances is that a trick is "won by a card played...", which is the specific test provided in L64A2. >Law 68A makes clear that a claim is related to the play of >future tricks where tricks are won (and lost) and L68C is more specific, >saying that a statement has to be given about the way to win the tricks >claimed. And in this example claimer is telling that he is losing a trick to >the spade J (even if he does not say so). L68D: Play Ceases. There is no more play. There are no more tricks won or lost by cards played. L69A Acquiesence: ".... The board is scored as though the tricks claimed or conceded had been won or lost in play." The language makes clear that such tricks have not, in fact, been won or lost in play. After all, legal play ceased at the point of the claim or concession. >This makes it clear to me that your approach is wrong and of not more than >an academic quality (which is a serious accusation in my language). To be >honest, even when L68 would have been less clear, I would not have bought >your view. L68 is of dubious relevance in any case, although I contend it is as much a support to my postition as you think it a counter. But note what it does not say: L68 makes no mention of revokes or the penalties to be applied thereto. L68 makes no claim that tricks claimed or conceded have exactly the same legal status as tricks actually played. To the contrary, it stresses that such tricks are not legally played at all. Although L68 does require that a _claim_ be accompanied by a statement, the same requirement is not stipulated for a _concession_. In any case, nothing in the requirement for a statement imposes an automatic burden on the claimer to announce which opponents will win which tricks or with which cards. Even if a player announces "East will win with the spade jack", it is not factually the same as a real rick to which East plays the spade jack. I'm sorry that you regard my arguments as merely academic. The problem which prompted this thread (which is not actually the problem you have been referring to) was a real problem, and I have made a genuine attempt to answer the question raised in terms of the specific language of the Laws. But in any case, thanks for your reply. 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 Oct 13 12:13:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9D2DLs23447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 12:13:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9D2DCt23437 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 12:13:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ives3u.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.112.126]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA06652 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 22:13:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001012214556.01211554@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 21:45:56 -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: <200010121446.KAA27820@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 10:46 AM 10/12/2000 -0400, Steve wrote: >> From: "Michael S. Dennis" >> But L44 is quite specific in describing >> how a _player_ can win a trick: there must be four cards played in >> sequence, and the trick is won by .... > >Sorry, Mike, but you are "assuming the converse" here. > >L44 states that _if_ there are four cards played in sequence (i.e., a >normal trick), a specified one of those cards wins the trick. However, >L44 in no way states, implies, or hints that this is the _only_ way to >win a trick. At the risk of repeating myself, I have never said so. It is, however, the only way to win a trick "by a card played", which is the legal test in L64A2. >L69A and 79A come to mind. (Do you see the 'as though' >in L69A? This makes clear that there is no distinction between tricks >"won" by having four cards actually played and "won" by virtue of a >claim or concession.) No, it means that there is no distinction between these types of tricks _for the purpose of scoring_. Read the whole sentence, rather than a single phrase. Indeed, the use of the phrase "as though" makes it quite clear that a trick won through play is _not_ the same thing as a trick "won" through claims and concessions, although it is to be counted the same in scoring the hand. >Your distinction between tricks won by a side and by a player is quite >creative, but I don't see any reason for it in the laws. Except that there it is. Sometimes the Laws refer to tricks won by a side, and included in that category, as you and others (including me) have pointed out are tricks "won" through claims and concessions. In other cases, and in particular in L64A2, the law specifically refers to a trick won by a player by playing a particular card. Not factually the same thing. 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 Oct 13 12:13:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9D2DQY23451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 12:13:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9D2DHt23446 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 12:13:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ives3u.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.112.126]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA25999 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 22:13:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001012220923.012189ec@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 22:09:23 -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: <200010121517.IAA15714@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 Your example is an interesting one, but it begs the question: In the absence of specific legal instruction, how are we to judge the standard to use in determining when a player should be credited (or blamed, more to the point) with "winning" a trick that was never played, when assessing the appropriate revoke penalty? You originally offered your earlier example to demonstrate why my reasoning in the first example was flawed. Surely any idiot could see that a two-trick penalty was in order when East would definitely have won one of the tricks, had the hand played out. Well, sir, I am not just any idiot! And I would like to turn the logic around, in the context of Richard's excellent question. If we do accept your logic in your earlier example hand, then we have embraced the proposition that tricks "won" through claims and concessions should be treated the same, for purposes of L64A2, as tricks actually played. But this leads to a complete muddle. Except in those cases where the subjunctive line is indisputable, we have no legal basis for deciding that a trick either has or has not been won by a particular player with a particular card. You've constructed an example below of sufficient improbability that the trick would be won by the card in question that you would rule that it had not been. Fine, but where _in the Laws_ do you find sanction for your standard? Although Adam Wildavsky clearly agreed with the ruling in the case of the forced winning of the trick, he was not so sure about how to handle the 50-50 case. You are. Whoopee! Since we can all make up our own standards, everyone is equally correct! To borrow a phrase from one whose writings I generally admire, that seems to me to be bizarre, and possibly contrary to the essence of the game. Mike Dennis At 08:17 AM 10/12/2000 PDT, Adam wrote: > >Richard Bley wrote: > >> At 23:33 11.10.2000 +0200, ton kooijman wrote: >> >Yes, your explanation is what I understood already. So my answer is that we >> >have to assume that east won a trick with spade J etc. That is why I >> >referred to 79 (A) where the job is done to establish the tricks won (by >> >both sides). I really don't see why anybody wants to complicate this. If we >> >read 68C in a claim there still remain tricks to be won by a side; in this >> >case the trick with the J of spades will be won by east. >> >On the other hand I agree that there are much more complicated situations >> >where the laws seem difficult to apply, probably your previous example is >> >one of them. So 480, we all agree? >> >> I see some problems here. (we had this discussion a year ago here). >> >> 1) How sure it has to be that East wins the trick with the "revoke"-card? >> Maybe? >> Sure? >> Probably? >> Or is even unlikely enough? >> has the declarer to manage it? >> How careful can the defense be? Is lazy right? Or even irrational? Some >> sorts of crocodil coups in this situations seems quite likely. > >Here's an example of a case where I would *not* award the extra trick: > > 8 4 > A 5 4 2 > 4 > 9 7 6 5 3 2 >6 3 2 7 5 >8 J 10 9 7 6 >A K Q J 10 3 9 5 >K J 10 A Q 8 4 > A K Q J 10 9 > K Q 3 > 8 7 6 2 > ---- > >South plays in 4S. West cashes a high diamond and East follows with >the 5, declarer with the 2. West leads another high diamond (for >reasons that appealed to him at the time), North ruffs high, East >falls asleep and pitches a heart. Declarer draws trumps, cashes two >hearts to discover the break, then concedes the last two diamonds. > >The question is, does East win a trick with a card he could have >legally played to the revoke trick---i.e. the good 9 of diamonds? >It's conceivable, but it's utterly bizarre to suppose this would >happen. West would have to duck when declarer leads the 8, 7, or 6 of >diamonds from hand, "knowing" that partner had no more of the suit. >So I think the penalty should be only one trick here. > >This is why Law 64A2 needs to be amended to clarify what happens after >a claim. Probably, a statement that if, after a claim or concession, >there is any "normal" line of play (consistent with the claim >statement or assumed line) that results in the revoker winning a trick >with a card he could have legally played to the revoke trick, then the >extra trick is transferred, with "normal" being defined as in the >claim laws. > > >> The problem I see here is, that declarer might get an advantage by claiming >> instead of playing on. He might have a problem which would be solved by >> claiming. This doesnt seem right to me. >> On the other hand I see the problem that claiming might lose tricks (see >> the original example). . . . >> >> The problem is if you give a two-trick penalty for this revoke you are give >> a player an advantage if he is claiming instead of playing on. He might get >> more tricks by claiming than by playing. BUT that is exactly what the laws >> didnt want by writing 70A.: > >You're right that we don't normally want to let players win extra >tricks by claiming. But this isn't a "normal" situation because an >opponent has revoked, and I have no objection to letting claimers gain >"extra" tricks in that situation. It's important to make sure people >make good claims and don't make bad ones, but it's even more important >to make sure EVERYBODY FOLLOWS SUIT, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. > > -- Adam >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 13 13:02:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9D328N23501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 13:02:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9D321t23497 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 13:02:02 +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 13jv6X-0002Wj-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 04:01:54 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 02:59:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Convention Cards [was: Ruling in Antwerp] References: <001301c0346f$05dda580$79e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <001301c0346f$05dda580$79e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: >Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>One specific Belgian problem is that very few have their >>convention cards ready when playing pairs tournaments. > >Belgium is not alone - many countries have the same problem. > >I think that the main reason is that if a country has a CC >that takes too long to fill in, then people naturally will not >fill it in. Admittedly I have never seen a Belgian CC, >but I am confident that if it were smaller than it is, >more pairs would fill it in. > >In Australia, a country where Convention Cards are widely >used, the CC is small (i.e pocket-size) and can generally be >completed in only a few minutes before play starts. I believe >that Britain also has small widely-used CCs. No, we have widely-used complicated CCs. We have applied pressure to get people to fill in CCs and it has worked. -- 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 Oct 13 13:18:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9D3IbI23541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 13:18:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9D3IPt23530 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 13:18:26 +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 13jvMO-00035A-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 04:18:20 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 04:15:50 +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: <200010121446.KAA27820@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.20001012214556.01211554@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20001012214556.01211554@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 10:46 AM 10/12/2000 -0400, Steve wrote: >>> From: "Michael S. Dennis" >>> But L44 is quite specific in describing >>> how a _player_ can win a trick: there must be four cards played in >>> sequence, and the trick is won by .... >> >>Sorry, Mike, but you are "assuming the converse" here. >> >>L44 states that _if_ there are four cards played in sequence (i.e., a >>normal trick), a specified one of those cards wins the trick. However, >>L44 in no way states, implies, or hints that this is the _only_ way to >>win a trick. > >At the risk of repeating myself, I have never said so. It is, however, the >only way to win a trick "by a card played", which is the legal test in L64A2. Who says so? My Law book does not. -- 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 Oct 13 13:18:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9D3IdF23543 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 13:18:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9D3IQt23531 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 13:18:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13jvMO-000358-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 04:18:17 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 04:09:28 +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: <5.0.0.25.0.20001012074502.009ed9f0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <200010121517.IAA15714@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.20001012220923.012189ec@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20001012220923.012189ec@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: >Your example is an interesting one, but it begs the question: In the >absence of specific legal instruction, how are we to judge the standard to >use in determining when a player should be credited (or blamed, more to the >point) with "winning" a trick that was never played, when assessing the >appropriate revoke penalty? > >You originally offered your earlier example to demonstrate why my reasoning >in the first example was flawed. Surely any idiot could see that a >two-trick penalty was in order when East would definitely have won one of >the tricks, had the hand played out. > >Well, sir, I am not just any idiot! And I would like to turn the logic >around, in the context of Richard's excellent question. If we do accept >your logic in your earlier example hand, then we have embraced the >proposition that tricks "won" through claims and concessions should be >treated the same, for purposes of L64A2, as tricks actually played. But >this leads to a complete muddle. Except in those cases where the >subjunctive line is indisputable, we have no legal basis for deciding that >a trick either has or has not been won by a particular player with a >particular card. You've constructed an example below of sufficient >improbability that the trick would be won by the card in question that you >would rule that it had not been. Fine, but where _in the Laws_ do you find >sanction for your standard? Although Adam Wildavsky clearly agreed with the >ruling in the case of the forced winning of the trick, he was not so sure >about how to handle the 50-50 case. You are. > >Whoopee! Since we can all make up our own standards, everyone is equally >correct! > >To borrow a phrase from one whose writings I generally admire, that seems >to me to be bizarre, and possibly contrary to the essence of the game. We seem to be returning to the position of whether you are trying to run a game or to win a semantic argument. We have demonstrated that the position that tricks not actually physically played cannot be won is illogical. There seems little point to take your ball home because of this. We now have to take the next step. Having decided that such tricks are won/lost, and therefore are transferable under the revoke Laws, it becomes easy to rule when there is no doubt who would have won each trick. So now we have to decide what basis we use when it is not so obvious. To say that it is bizarre and contrary to the essence of the game that we are trying to work out how to apply the Laws to a tricky [ahem!] position is hardly helpful. We need to know how to move forward. Somewhere along the line I have failed to finish with a copy of the WBFLC minutes from Bermuda. Do those minutes not answer the question? -- 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 Oct 13 13:18:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9D3IbH23542 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 13:18:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9D3IPt23529 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 13:18:26 +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 13jvMO-000359-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 04:18:19 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 04:14:58 +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: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6B7@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3.0.1.32.20001012213022.01213010@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20001012213022.01213010@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 09:17 AM 10/12/2000 +0200, Ton wrote: >>All I can say is that your reading of the laws in the case when a trick is >>won leads to the situation that after a claim nobody can decide the result >>on the board, because no tricks can be won after a claim. This sounds >>ridiculous. > >It does sound ridiculous, but it is not a statement I have made, nor does >it logically follow from my argument. I apologize if my posting failed to >clarify that tricks can indeed be regarded as "won" by one side, when in >fact they were never played or indeed were simply transferred as a result >of a ruling. What has _not_ happened in those circumstances is that a trick >is "won by a card played...", which is the specific test provided in L64A2. > >>Law 68A makes clear that a claim is related to the play of >>future tricks where tricks are won (and lost) and L68C is more specific, >>saying that a statement has to be given about the way to win the tricks >>claimed. And in this example claimer is telling that he is losing a trick to >>the spade J (even if he does not say so). > >L68D: Play Ceases. There is no more play. There are no more tricks won or >lost by cards played. > >L69A Acquiesence: ".... The board is scored as though the tricks claimed or >conceded had been won or lost in play." > >The language makes clear that such tricks have not, in fact, been won or >lost in play. After all, legal play ceased at the point of the claim or >concession. So? If you are going to produce dubious semantic arguments to try to avoid a sensible solution to the problem, perhaps you could tell me where it says in L64 that the penalty tricks refer to tricks "in play"? >>This makes it clear to me that your approach is wrong and of not more than >>an academic quality (which is a serious accusation in my language). To be >>honest, even when L68 would have been less clear, I would not have bought >>your view. > >L68 is of dubious relevance in any case, although I contend it is as much a >support to my postition as you think it a counter. But note what it does >not say: > >L68 makes no mention of revokes or the penalties to be applied thereto. > >L68 makes no claim that tricks claimed or conceded have exactly the same >legal status as tricks actually played. To the contrary, it stresses that >such tricks are not legally played at all. > >Although L68 does require that a _claim_ be accompanied by a statement, the >same requirement is not stipulated for a _concession_. In any case, nothing >in the requirement for a statement imposes an automatic burden on the >claimer to announce which opponents will win which tricks or with which >cards. Even if a player announces "East will win with the spade jack", it >is not factually the same as a real rick to which East plays the spade jack. > >I'm sorry that you regard my arguments as merely academic. The problem >which prompted this thread (which is not actually the problem you have been >referring to) was a real problem, and I have made a genuine attempt to >answer the question raised in terms of the specific language of the Laws. >But in any case, thanks for your reply. The reason we think your arguments academic is that you are not trying to solve a problem, but use the language of the Laws to try to prove the problem insoluble. The nicest thing one can say about that approach is that it is not 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 Oct 13 15:04:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9D53vE23622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 15:03:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9D53pt23618 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 15:03:51 +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 AAA24118; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 00:56:22 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001301c0346f$05dda580$79e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> References: <001301c0346f$05dda580$79e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 00:53:31 -0400 To: "Peter Gill" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Convention Cards [was: Ruling in Antwerp] Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Peter Gill wrote: >I think that the main reason is that if a country has a CC >that takes too long to fill in, then people naturally will not >fill it in. Admittedly I have never seen a Belgian CC, >but I am confident that if it were smaller than it is, >more pairs would fill it in. > >In Australia, a country where Convention Cards are widely >used, the CC is small (i.e pocket-size) and can generally be >completed in only a few minutes before play starts. I believe >that Britain also has small widely-used CCs. > >American CCs on the other hand are much larger and tend >not to be used. The WBF CC is the largest of all and is a >special case - it is filled in before the event, but tends to be >shunted aside during the game, being too bulky to fit on the table. Actually, the EBU CC (20A, IIRC) is bigger than the ACBL card. It has less preprinted on it, but a lot more room to write stuff in. The big problem with the ACBL card is that if you aren't playing SA or something very close to it, it's difficult to properly describe your agreements (playing Precision, for example, the preprinted info regarding minor suit openings is pretty much useless - and gets in the way of a proper description). I still have the EBU card I used when I was there, with the Precision system I was using then on it. I'm not using quite the same system today, but there's a lot more on, for example, asking bids, on the EBU card, then I have room to write on the ACBL one. People don't fill out CCs for three reasons: (1) nobody showed them how; (2) nobody takes them to task for not having one; and (3) they're lazy. :-) The ACBL card is one page. The back, or inside, is a score card. I'd like to see the ACBL do away with that, and use both sides for system description. But it ain't gonna happen. Too many LoLs (of both sexes) would complain. 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/AwUBOeaXGr2UW3au93vOEQJk+gCfRc8h1MflVp1jUIQbiuh6ZllOqkMAoOn1 kQ/mgx6+VpiWu4aLe4iGqkEb =Uc1e -----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 Oct 13 17:26:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9D7PdT23708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 17:25:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9D7PVt23704 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 17:25:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis81.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.81]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.1999.06.13.00.20) with ESMTP id <0G2C00HPNXYD93@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 09:25:27 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 09:25:24 +0200 From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke In-reply-to: X-Sender: Richard.Bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <5.0.0.25.0.20001013092115.00a601d0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <3.0.1.32.20001012220923.012189ec@pop.mindspring.com> <5.0.0.25.0.20001012074502.009ed9f0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <200010121517.IAA15714@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.20001012220923.012189ec@pop.mindspring.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > We now have to take the next step. Having decided that such tricks >are won/lost, and therefore are transferable under the revoke Laws, it >becomes easy to rule when there is no doubt who would have won each >trick. So now we have to decide what basis we use when it is not so >obvious. That seems the right question now. (If everyone agrees in the case when there is a sure trick to win, I can confirm; in my view its important to use the law uniformly. Even more important than the correct interpretation of laws) 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 Oct 13 17:26:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9D7PpB23714 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 17:25:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9D7Pit23710 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 17:25:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA18074 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 09:25:40 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Oct 13 09:26:58 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 <01JVA7YLZM62000R1W@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 09:25:12 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <4ZGB3WFS>; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 09:21:57 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 09:25:11 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: [BLML] no concession (new strain) To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , "Kooijman, A." Cc: bridge-laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6BD@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 +=+............................. The WBFLC has required > that, unless we are quoting the minuted discussion of > the WBFLC, it is made clear that opinions of any of us > are personal opinions. From time to time I have had a > reminder from within the membership of the WBFLC > that the time has arrived to say this once again. The > WBFLC has also minuted that for interim interpretations > as to the meaning of laws, where there is no recorded > WBFLC decision, an NBO should refer to its Zonal > Authority pending a decision by the WBFLC in a meeting. > My own view is that it is desirable to get a decision > from our committee when we meet if there is a matter > on which there is any significant doubt, especially as > the committee has taken a position that it does not > want the law to be determined henceforward by the > opinion of an individual. Post EK, who tended to > abrogate to himself the power to prescribe the law, it > has reasserted itself strongly - for fear, it seems, that > it would find the ground taken from it by the modern > speed of communication if I, or you, or Kojak, or any, > took to publishing statements as Edgar used to do, > without a restriction on their status. +=+ Yes, I know this all and agree with this approach. But we should think of taking a somewhat stronger position once in a while. If for example the two of us agree, which is not an automatic situation if I remember well, and there is no mentioning of bringing it in our LC this could be taken as the view of the LC. Let us make it even stronger: If there is a deviating opinion among the three of us: Kojak you and me (and more so if more members of the LC take actively part in this discussions), or if one us wants to discuss it within the committee, the world has to wait for an interpretation. Otherwise the world is better of when acting in accordance with our view. This creates a medium of interpretation about more or less obvious cases by which we diminish chaos as much as possible. As I said, the regulars in this group will have noticed that agreeing among the three of us is not a habit by which BLML becomes a dull debating group. ton > > > +=+ My opinion is the same as yours. I do not > read Law 44E/F as excluding the fact that tricks > are won or lost by a side as the outcome of a > claim or concession within the terms of Law 68 > (which explicitly uses the words 'a contestant > will win' and 'a contestant will lose'). Personally > I would not consider there is any 'significant > doubt' to take to the WBFLC in this, and it > does not sound as though you think even the > briefest time would be well spent on it either. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Well here it is, we agree. Which means that the normal penalties for established revokes after a claim apply (don't dare Bill!). And didn't we say something about doubtful possible continuations after a claim as a committee earlier? INTERPRETATION. 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 Oct 13 17:31:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9D7VAo23734 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 17:31:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9D7Uvt23730 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 17:30:58 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id IAA01344 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 08:30:43 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 08:30 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp 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: <39E57B71.E98A976F@village.uunet.be> Herman wrote: > Exactly. Why should I need to plough through self-serving > statements as to the meaning of a call when one meaning at > least is as obvious as daylight : the hand itself ! As a player you don't. As a player I consider you fully justified in asking for a ruling in this case, I even think it is OK if one of your reasons for playing the multi is because it makes life difficult for poor quality opponents (it's also fine by me if you play it for other reasons). However, once you don your TD hat it *is your job* to wade through statements, isolate those you consider relevant, weigh the strength you assign to each and arrive at a well considered conclusion. I do think your current "standards" for evidence are too high, but they are certainly legal. 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 Oct 13 17:35:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9D7ZjR23747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 17:35:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9D7Zct23743 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 17:35:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.76] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13jzNG-000ClN-00; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 08:35:27 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01c034e8$5d648660$4c5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Peter Gill" , "BLML" References: <001301c0346f$05dda580$79e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Convention Cards [was: Ruling in Antwerp] Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 08:35:48 +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 "A public-opinion poll is no substitute for thought." - Warren Buffett ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Gill To: BLML Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 6:08 PM Subject: [BLML] Convention Cards [was: Ruling in Antwerp] > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >One specific Belgian problem is that very few have their > >convention cards ready when playing pairs tournaments. > > Belgium is not alone - many countries have the same problem. > > I think that the main reason is that if a country has a CC > that takes too long to fill in, then people naturally will not > fill it in. Admittedly I have never seen a Belgian CC, > but I am confident that if it were smaller than it is, > more pairs would fill it in. > > In Australia, a country where Convention Cards are widely > used, the CC is small (i.e pocket-size) and can generally be > completed in only a few minutes before play starts. I believe > that Britain also has small widely-used CCs. > +=+ Yes. But strangely numbers of players whose methods are more exhaustively explored want to use the WBF card (or a large version of their own). This tendency is restricted by EBU regulation. +=+ > > American CCs on the other hand are much larger and tend > not to be used. The WBF CC is the largest of all and is a > special case - it is filled in before the event, but tends to be > shunted aside during the game, being too bulky to fit on the table. > +=+ I am quite surprised you say this. My observation has been that in international championships the CCs are presented to opponents and almost invariably kept either propped up against the screen or handily to one side - and referred to quite a lot. +=+ > > I think that the WBF should have three levels of > Systemic Submission for their events, namely: > > (1) The current WBF CC, redesigned (after all, it is 18 years old). > > (2) A standardised pocket-size "plain English" version of the > WBF CC, designed to be kept on the table. This miniCC > would have Opening Bids, BSCs and Card Play briefly > summarised on the front (to minimise the need to flick the > CC over), and could have Competitive Bidding and other > useful bidding information outlined on the back. > +=+ The front of the English card has spaces for: General description of system Style of leads, signals, discards Aspects of system which opponents should note (detailed inside or on back) Strength of NT openers 2C response to 1NT opener (with opponents passing) +=+ > > (3) Provision for an optional Full System summary which pairs > can submit if they want to. The current WBF System Policy > already allows for this. It would be helpful for appeals. As > online submission of systems becomes more popular in > the 21st Century, this third option will presumably take off. > +=+ I think you understate the position. The Systems Policy reads: "For all category 1 team events, where HUM systems are permitted, any pair using a HUM system is required (in addition to the normal timely filing of the comvention card and supplementary sheets) to submit the full system in English at the beginning of the championship. Pairs using Green, Blue or Red systems are encouraged to submit their full system in English at the beginning of any WBF championship. In decisions taken by Directors and by the Appeals Committee, pairs who have submitted their full system will be given the benefit of any support this provides for an explanation given at the table, as far as this goes." (The final five words have a weasel sound). Directors do consult deposited systems where they may be of help (and commonly report what they find on appeals forms or in presenting an appeal. +=+ > Advantages are: > > - at WBF events, players do not have to wade through a massive > CC to find out fairly basic information. > > - administrators can more easily check CCs for BSCs etc. > +=+ I resist the suggestion that this be an administrator's task. +=+ > > - players at WBF events will actually have a CC on the table, which > sets a better example to countries where this doesn't happen. > > - the pocket-size WBF miniCC might become widely used in > countries which have in the past not used CCs much. This is > the strongest point in favour of my suggestion: it seems logical > that the WBF should have a CC which countries can use. > > - the new version of the large WBF CC can be updated to include > space for modern treatments which have arisen since 1982, such > as Bergen Raises, Preemptive Jump Raises, Obvious Switch > Principle, Smith/Reverse Smith, Suit Preference in the Trump > Suit and so forth). Such expansion in the information on the big CC > would be balanced by the fact that players would generally refer to > the miniCC. > > - at WBF events, "finding out what the opponents' cardplay signals > are" would become much easier than it currently is. > +=+ Minimally so where alternative meanings are conditioned by partnership experience. But the general direction of your comments is useful and offers scope for further thought. ~ 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 Oct 13 18:09:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9D88pf23776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 18:08:51 +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 e9D88et23772 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 18:08:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.224] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13jztC-000DPm-00; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 09:08:26 +0100 Message-ID: <002901c034ec$f9aa7d00$4c5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "William Schoder" , "Kooijman, A." Cc: "Grattan Endicott" , "bridge-laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6BD@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: [BLML] Re: no concession (new strain) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 09:08:15 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "A public-opinion poll is no substitute for thought." - Warren Buffett ----- Original Message ----- From: Kooijman, A. To: 'Grattan Endicott' ; Kooijman, A. Cc: bridge-laws Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 8:25 AM Subject: no concession (new strain) > > Yes, I know this all and agree with this approach. But we should think of > taking a somewhat stronger position once in a while. If for example the two > of us agree, which is not an automatic situation if I remember well, and > there is no mentioning of bringing it in our LC this could be taken as the > view of the LC. Let us make it even stronger: If there is a deviating > opinion among the three of us: Kojak you and me (and more so if more members > of the LC take actively part in this discussions), or if one us wants to > discuss it within the committee, the world has to wait for an > interpretation. Otherwise the world is better of when acting in accordance > with our view. > This creates a medium of interpretation about more or less obvious cases by > which we diminish chaos as much as possible. > As I said, the regulars in this group will have noticed that agreeing among > the three of us is not a habit by which BLML becomes a dull debating group. > > > ton > +=+ In all of this I support strongly what you are saying. I was deeply disappointed when the committee failed to appreciate the desirability of having a 'fast response' mode for dealing with questions that are floated. A proportion of what we read on blml should be disposed of quickly - before Directors start to follow what is suggested. Our constant reminders that they must consult their NBOs are ineffectual. I recognize that you and I, largely agreeing but not always (and with occasional interspersions from Kojak), aim to meet the case to an extent - and I know we both get frustrated when, because there is no minuted ruling, we are not able to kick into touch what is patently not the intended approach of the WBFLC. I must say that I do not think the WBFLC has yet joined the 21st Century in its understanding of the new power of instantaneous world-wide communications. But yes, let us keep trying; I would welcome an approach by which you, Kojak and I, as the key executive officers of the WBFLC, might draft common responses to issues. I do welcome what you say; perhaps we need an alert system between us for occasions when you/Kojak/I feel a consultation to one side is desirable? (And after consultation I see no reason not to disclose a difference of thinking if we find we have one). ~ 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 Oct 13 22:41:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9DCdB724026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 22:39:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9DCd1t24022 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 22:39:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from p00s05a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.101.1] helo=pacific) by cobalt5-ps.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13jfmb-0003OH-00; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 11:40:17 +0100 Message-ID: <000401c03512$117f1b00$016593c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" , "John (MadDog) Probst" References: <000201c03218$84d30640$66d336cb@gillp.bigpond.com><39E2EE47.E984E170@village.uunet.be><3.0.1.32.20001011205651.01210b68@pop.mindspring.com><39E57B71.E98A976F@village.uunet.be> <$Z67IZAi7l55Ewjm@probst.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 13:33:07 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicottxx< "None but ourselves can free our minds." (Bob Marley) ----- Original Message ----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: Bridge Laws Sent: 13 October 2000 02:01 Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling in Antwerp > In message <39E57B71.E98A976F@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael > writes > > snip > > > >Remarkably unanimous indeed. I've never been so convinced > >that I was wrong. > > > >I'll write that again. It might make someone's sig file. > > > >I was wrong. Herman De Wael on blml 2000-10-12. > > > I'll bite. > -- > >I've never been so convinced > >that I was wrong. HdW 12th Oct 2000 > > John (MadDog) Probst > -- +=+ Bob Marley for President? +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 13 22:46:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9DCjd424044 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 22:45:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r12.mail.aol.com (imo-r12.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.66]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9DCitt24040 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 22:44:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.31.) id 9.f7.38832f1 (3700); Fri, 13 Oct 2000 08:43:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 08:43:45 EDT Subject: [BLML] Re: no concession (new strain) To: Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk, A.Kooijman@DWK.AGRO.NL CC: gester@globalnet.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: Windows AOL sub 124 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In a message dated 10/13/00 4:09:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk writes: > Grattan Endicott > "A public-opinion poll is no substitute for thought." > - Warren Buffett > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Kooijman, A. > To: 'Grattan Endicott' ; Kooijman, A. > > Cc: bridge-laws > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 8:25 AM > Subject: no concession (new strain) > > > > > > Yes, I know this all and agree with this approach. But we should > think of > > taking a somewhat stronger position once in a while. If for > example the two > > of us agree, which is not an automatic situation if I remember > well, and > > there is no mentioning of bringing it in our LC this could be > taken as the > > view of the LC. Let us make it even stronger: If there is a > deviating > > opinion among the three of us: Kojak you and me (and more so if > more members > > of the LC take actively part in this discussions), or if one us > wants to > > discuss it within the committee, the world has to wait for an > > interpretation. Otherwise the world is better of when acting in > accordance > > with our view. > > This creates a medium of interpretation about more or less obvious > cases by > > which we diminish chaos as much as possible. > > As I said, the regulars in this group will have noticed that > agreeing among > > the three of us is not a habit by which BLML becomes a dull > debating group. > > > > > > ton > > > +=+ In all of this I support strongly what you > are saying. I was deeply disappointed when > the committee failed to appreciate the > desirability of having a 'fast response' mode > for dealing with questions that are floated. > A proportion of what we read on blml should > be disposed of quickly - before Directors > start to follow what is suggested. Our constant > reminders that they must consult their NBOs > are ineffectual. I recognize that you and I, > largely agreeing but not always (and with > occasional interspersions from Kojak), aim to > meet the case to an extent - and I know we > both get frustrated when, because there > is no minuted ruling, we are not able to > kick into touch what is patently not the > intended approach of the WBFLC. I must > say that I do not think the WBFLC has yet > joined the 21st Century in its understanding > of the new power of instantaneous world-wide > communications. But yes, let us keep trying; > I would welcome an approach by which you, > Kojak and I, as the key executive officers of > the WBFLC, might draft common responses > to issues. I do welcome what you say; > perhaps we need an alert system between > us for occasions when you/Kojak/I feel a > consultation to one side is desirable? (And > after consultation I see no reason not to > disclose a difference of thinking if we find > we have one). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > Amen to both of you. Particularly the need to use our new found ability for almost instantaneous communication. You might even make the number larger (say 4 or 5) to satisfy the WBFLC members. And, with that I would have no problem whatsoever in making official statements which could be ratified at the next WBFLC meeting. It would also make my participation more than just the occasional where I have been in disagreement. This exchange makes me realize that I've generally been silent when agreeing, and not taking the time to let you guys know -- of course the procedure would hopefully involve precommunication by us before going out on BLML or answering questions from NCBOs, etc. Best regards, 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 Oct 13 23:56:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9DDu5224105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 23:56:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9DDtxt24101 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 23:56:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id JAA01604 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 09:55:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id JAA05025 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 09:55:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 09:55:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200010131355.JAA05025@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au 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 > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > At the risk of repeating myself, I have never said so. It is, however, the > only way to win a trick "by a card played", which is the legal test in L64A2. The relevant text is: "...won by the offending player with a card that he could legally have played to the revoke trick..." I still fail to see that this makes any distinction between tricks won via a claim or concession and tricks won in normal play. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 14 00:04:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9DE4KE24124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 00:04:20 +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 e9DE4Et24120 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 00:04:14 +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 KAA02020 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 10:04:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA05041 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 10:04:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 10:04:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200010131404.KAA05041@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au 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 > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > Except in those cases where the > subjunctive line is indisputable, we have no legal basis for deciding that > a trick either has or has not been won by a particular player with a > particular card. Nonsense! In many, perhaps most, practical cases, it will be obvious whether a particular card (or one of several cards) will or will not win a trick. If there is significant doubt, we resolve it against the revoker, as usual. If it really were true that the Laws don't cover this case, then apply L12A1 and award an adjusted score. In the ACBL, this would mean the two-trick penalty applies (or more precisely, that the adjusted score to be awarded reflects the two-trick penalty) if there is as much as one chance in three that further play would lead to that result. I agree that the next laws version should explicitly deal with the interaction of revokes and claims. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 14 01:23:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9DFMYN24193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 01:22:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9DFMRt24189 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 01:22:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis118.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.118]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.1999.06.13.00.20) with ESMTP id <0G2D00HPTK191C@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 17:22:23 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 17:22:20 +0200 From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke In-reply-to: <200010131404.KAA05041@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-Sender: Richard.Bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de To: Steve Willner , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <5.0.0.25.0.20001013172135.00a5b030@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:04 13.10.2000 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > > Except in those cases where the > > subjunctive line is indisputable, we have no legal basis for deciding that > > a trick either has or has not been won by a particular player with a > > particular card. > >Nonsense! In many, perhaps most, practical cases, it will be obvious >whether a particular card (or one of several cards) will or will not >win a trick. If there is significant doubt, we resolve it against the >revoker, as usual. I thought it was "usual" to decide any doubt against the claimer 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 Sat Oct 14 01:32:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9DFWSK24212 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 01:32:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9DFWGt24207 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 01:32:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from pe7s02a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.82.232] helo=pacific) by cobalt11-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13k6lB-0001Dv-00; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 16:28:37 +0100 Message-ID: <003c01c0352a$35930520$e85293c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , "David Stevenson" Cc: "Bill Schoder" , "Antonio Riccardi" , "'Grattan Endicott'" , "Richard Grenside" , "Max Bavin" , "bridge-laws" References: <39C08689.731E@dksin.dk><20000914044706.27000.00000558@ng-cm1.aol.com><8pqdiv$7dk$1@netox20.alcatel.no> <39e203be.0@cfanews.harvard.edu> Subject: [BLML] Re: couple laws questions Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 16:21:19 +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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicottxx< "None but ourselves can free our minds." (Bob Marley) ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Steve Willner Cc: ; Grattan Endicott Sent: 10 October 2000 11:10 Subject: Re: couple laws questions > Posted + emailed > > Steve Willner wrote > >In article > >, Ed > >Reppert writes: > >> Dummy can *attempt* to prevent an infraction *by declarer*. [Law 42B2] > >> Once the infraction has occurred, though, he may not draw attention to > >> it until after play is concluded. [Law 42B3, reiterated in Law 43A1(b)] > > > >All true, although I'll quibble about 'reiterated'. (The latter two > >laws are complementary, not redundant.) > > > >> So once declarer places his played card face down, if it's facing the > >> wrong way, the infraction has occurred, and dummy should keep his mouth > >> shut. > > > >In this specific case, the ACBL has decided that the irregularity > >hasn't occurred until declarer plays to the next trick (either from > >his own hand or dummy). Other organizations may have different > >rules, but the ACBL rule seems sensible to me. If you take "prevent" > >literally, there would be only a miniscule sliver of time in which a > >correction would be legal. The ACBL rule allows a time long enough > >that a correction is usually possible but short enough that dummy's > >remark is unlikely to serve as a reminder later in the play. > > While I agree it is sensible, and I personally would like to see a Law > where any player may draw attention to a card placed the wrong way until > both sides have played to the next trick, what Steve says is at variance > with Duplicate Decisions. What that publication says is that there is > no penalty for pointing it out to partner unless it suggests a play > [when there would be an adjustment], and if done fairly immediately it > is very unlikely to suggest a play. > > cc Grattan Endicott > +=+ Going through the abundance of emails received this month, and not yet read, I found the above. I have taken the time to dig back into my papers for 1985. The first full draft of the 'New Laws' was forwarded, with annotation, from the WBF to the EBL for its reactions. Concerning Law 65 the WBF drew the EBL's attention to the fact that "we remove the right to ask another player to turn his quitted cards correctly". The WBF intention, therefore, is that once the card is 'quitted' another player may not ask for it to be turned correctly. Now all we need know is whether definitions of 'quitted' vary. A response committee was set up by the EBL (Franklin, Endicott, Bakke, Klaczak, Sandsmark, Besse, Erdenbaum, Madsen, Gerontopoulos, and Hallen). Of Law 65E it remarked: "The committee by majority agrees to the change in 65E, but wonders whether it should not be more explicitly expressed." Ah! indeed! ~ 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 Oct 14 02:02:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9DG2F324265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 02:02:15 +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 e9DG28t24261 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 02:02:09 +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 MAA07622 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 12:02:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA05259 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 12:02:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 12:02:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200010131602.MAA05259@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au 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 > From: Richard Bley > I thought it was "usual" to decide any doubt against the claimer A lot of people seem to think that, but it seems wrong to me. Certainly doubts _about the claim_ are resolved against the claimer, but I don't see why claiming should disadvantage claimer with regard to an opponent's prior infraction. That would punish claiming, which is not what we want at all. Did the WBFLC say something about the "revoke then claim" business either at Lille or Maastricht (or elsewhere)? A quick check of the usual sources doesn't show anything, but I thought one of the BLML messages mentioned a decision. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 14 03:09:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9DH7hK24327 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 03:07:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9DH7bt24323 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 03:07:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA10801; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 10:07:33 -0700 Message-Id: <200010131707.KAA10801@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, 13 Oct 2000 04:09:28 PDT." Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 10:07:34 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > To say that it is bizarre and contrary to the essence of the game that > we are trying to work out how to apply the Laws to a tricky [ahem!] > position is hardly helpful. We need to know how to move forward. > > Somewhere along the line I have failed to finish with a copy of the > WBFLC minutes from Bermuda. Do those minutes not answer the question? and Steve Willner wrote: > Did the WBFLC say something about the "revoke then claim" business > either at Lille or Maastricht (or elsewhere)? A quick check of the > usual sources doesn't show anything, but I thought one of the BLML > messages mentioned a decision. Previously, I had looked in the Bermuda minutes and found this: # 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. which deals with a non-established revoke, but not with the situation we're discussing. I haven't found anything in the minutes from Bermuda, or the few other minutes I have copies of, that addresses this issue. I don't have the minutes for Lille or Maastricht; if they were posted on BLML, I failed to make a copy of them. I can't find them anywhere on the WBF web page (should they be available there?). There's a summary of law interpretations from Lille on David's web site, but no revoke-and-claim issues are mentioned there. -- 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 Oct 14 04:19:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9DIIvb24409 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 04:18:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9DIIpt24404 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 04:18:51 +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 OAA18244 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:18:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA05355 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:18:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:18:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200010131818.OAA05355@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au 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 > From: Adam Beneschan > Previously, I had looked in the Bermuda minutes and found this: > # and then determine the claim as equitably as possible, adjudicating > # any margin of doubt against the revoker. > which deals with a non-established revoke, but not with the situation > we're discussing. Thanks, Adam. While the interpretation doesn't deal directly with the present issue, I suggest "adjudicating any margin of doubt against the revoker" is relevant. David: any chance you could collect the Bermuda and Maastricht minutes and add them to your very useful page? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 14 06:33:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9DKX7L24489 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 06:33:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9DKWwt24481 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 06:32:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivet68.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.116.200]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA22002 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 16:32:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001013154848.01223f08@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 15:48:48 -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: <200010131355.JAA05025@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 09:55 AM 10/13/2000 -0400, Steve wrote: >> From: "Michael S. Dennis" >> At the risk of repeating myself, I have never said so. It is, however, the >> only way to win a trick "by a card played", which is the legal test in L64A2. > >The relevant text is: > "...won by the offending player with a card that he could legally > have played to the revoke trick..." > >I still fail to see that this makes any distinction between tricks won >via a claim or concession and tricks won in normal play. For the simple reason that the Laws provide an unambiguous standard for determining whether a card played to a trick has won that trick, but are strangely silent about how to tell whether an unplayed card has actually won an unplayed trick. 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 Oct 14 06:33:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9DKXAs24490 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 06:33:10 +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 e9DKWxt24482 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 06:32:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivet68.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.116.200]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA22244 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 16:32:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001013163228.012260d8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 16:32:28 -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: References: <3.0.1.32.20001012213022.01213010@pop.mindspring.com> <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6B7@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3.0.1.32.20001012213022.01213010@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 04:14 AM 10/13/2000 +0100, David S wrote: > The reason we think your arguments academic is that you are not trying >to solve a problem, but use the language of the Laws to try to prove the >problem insoluble. The nicest thing one can say about that approach is >that it is not helpful. > I have tried to answer a question that was presented with a fairly straightforward reading of the relevant text, un-embellished with speculation about the nature of the game or the true intentions of the lawmakers. When trying to decide how to rule under L64A2, we must ask "Has a trick been won by the offending player with a card he could have played to the revoke trick?" Note that the language is not "_could have been won_ by the offending player with a card...", nor "...would surely have been won (save for a concession or claim) by the offending player...". My position is that this language does not allow us to treat tricks won by claim or concession as having been won by any particular card (since no such card can be legally played), and that therefore such tricks cannot count toward meeting the condition needed to enforce a 2-trick penalty under L64A2. Whatever else you can say about it, my approach does provide the virtue of a clear and simple procedure, and not incidentally, does provide an answer to the original question. I'm sorry you think this unhelpful. Your contrary position, shared by Ton, Adam(s), Grattan (I think), and Steve, is that the language of the phrase in question either clearly does, or at any rate ought to, refer to tricks yet unplayed. Left unanswered by most of you is the question raised by this interpretation: by what legal standard are we to judge whether an unplayed card has actually won an unplayed trick? I do not regard the problem as unsolvable, except within the constraints of the Laws in their present form. Certainly it should be possible to formulate and codify a solution. If I have been unhelpful in that effort, it is because I really don't see the need. To recap: I have offered a straightforward solution to an actual problem presented to the group, and a consistent and simple approach to dealing with such problems in the future. The Leading Lights, on the other hand, have provided numerous interesting hypothetical cases in support of an approach that leaves unanswered the question of how to deal with the actual problem raised. And I'm the one who is too "academic"? 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 Oct 14 06:34:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9DKY9J24508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 06:34:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9DKY2t24504 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 06:34:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivet68.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.116.200]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA31440 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 16:33:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001013163335.01218750@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 16:33:35 -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: References: <3.0.1.32.20001011215632.0121528c@pop.mindspring.com> <015d01c03397$05a74360$71b6f1c3@kooijman> <3.0.1.32.20001011215632.0121528c@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 01:03 PM 10/12/2000 +0100, David S wrote: > I think this is a considerable and unnecessary stretch of L44. A >claim is a speeding up process of the playing [and therefore winning] of >tricks. L68 refers to a claim or concession of tricks. You are >assuming that tricks not played in the traditional manner are not tricks >but your view is at variance with the written Law. No. I am assuming that tricks not played in the traditional manner are not _played_ tricks, a position which is precisely stated in L68. >>To which I respond 1) there is nothing inherently bizarre or inequitable >>about the result, except that which is inherent in the arbitrary character >>of the penalties for revokes. Sometimes one trick is awarded, and sometimes >>two, with no obvious connection to the magnitude of the crime or the >>advantage gained thereby. C'est la vie. > > This is also incorrect. If you were to compare the results of revokes >with the number of penalty tricks awarded then you would find a >correlation. The penalty tricks is a very rough and ready attempt at >some form of equity. In a statistical sense, you are no doubt correct. But that does not contradict my claim that in any given case, the size of penalty may be completely independent of either the severity of the offense or its impact. > Consider the simple case where declarer cashes a trump from dummy but >revokes in hand. He has kept an extra trump which will often be worth >an extra trick. In fact, if he later uses that trump to win a trick it >will become a two-trick revoke. If, however, he uses it later to follow >suit and not win the trick, it is a one-trick revoke. That seems a very >fair distinction: he is penalised one extra trick when he is going to >get an extra trick for the revoke! > > This correlation is important. How can you justify not keeping the >same correlation when there is a claim? Consider the simple case from the original problem. Unaware that there has been a revoke, declarer at trick 12 can play a losing diamond, in which case West wins the last two tricks, or a losing spade, in which case East wins the last two tricks, including one with a card he could have played to the revoke trick. In the first case, a one trick penalty, while in the second, a two-trick penalty, despite the fact that the impact of the revoke in the two instances is the same, and that South is entirely blameless in choosing between two alternatives that appear identical. How can we justify the distinction in these outcomes? Easy. We agree that a _somewhat_ arbitrary penalty for handling a relatively common infraction is, on balance, a good thing, even though we recognize that it will sometimes result in arbitrary distinctions between what seem like entirely equivalent situations. L64A2 provides a factual test for determining when a two-trick penalty should be awarded. It is a ridiculously easy test to apply, which is appropriate since the situation is so common. Has a trick been "won by a card which could have been played..."? Call me simple, but in order to meet that condition, the card in question has to have been played to a trick, and L68D makes clear that no such thing happens in any legal sense subsequent to a claim or concession. 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 Oct 14 07:10:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9DLALa24530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 07:10:21 +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 e9DLAFt24526 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 07:10:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivet68.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.116.200]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA12199 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 17:10:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001013170947.01223ecc@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 17:09:47 -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: <200010131404.KAA05041@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 10:04 AM 10/13/2000 -0400, Steve wrote: >> From: "Michael S. Dennis" >> Except in those cases where the >> subjunctive line is indisputable, we have no legal basis for deciding that >> a trick either has or has not been won by a particular player with a >> particular card. > >Nonsense! In many, perhaps most, practical cases, it will be obvious >whether a particular card (or one of several cards) will or will not >win a trick. In the case that was actually presented to us in the beginning of this thread, it was completely unclear which player would win which trick. AFIK, this is the only real-world example we have at our disposal. Have you conducted a study to determine that a clear case can be rendered in most of these instances? I really don't know how you can make this claim. >If there is significant doubt, we resolve it against the revoker, as usual. And the legal authority for that approach is? I have read and re-read the Laws on revokes, and find no mention of this "usual" principle. >If it really were true that the Laws don't cover this case, then apply >L12A1 and award an adjusted score. In the ACBL, this would mean the >two-trick penalty applies (or more precisely, that the adjusted score >to be awarded reflects the two-trick penalty) if there is as much as >one chance in three that further play would lead to that result. But it isn't true that the Laws don't cover this case. L64A2 provides an explicit test: has a trick been won by a player with a card he could have played to the revoke trick? Only if we decide, for reasons that remain mysterious, that we must regard unplayed tricks as having been won by particular unplayed cards are we forced to confront the lack of a suitable legal structure for handling the situation. In any case, L12A1 would not come into play. That is only in effect when the Laws provide no indemnity for the NOS. In the case of a revoke, the equity of the NOS is fully indemnified against the effects of the revoke by the provisions of L64C. 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 Oct 14 08:57:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9DMunv24592 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 08:56:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium ([194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9DMuht24588 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 08:56:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.136.175] (helo=D457300) by protactinium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13kDkh-0006Qf-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 23:56:36 +0100 Message-ID: <005d01c03568$addd3440$af8801d5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: <015d01c03397$05a74360$71b6f1c3@kooijman> <3.0.1.32.20001011215632.0121528c@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 23:54:49 +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 I have not been contributing to this thread because the arguments on either side seem well defined and well championed by the various protagonists, and I have little of value to add to them. It seems to me that here is a legal problem of some depth, the resolution of which is by no means clear. However, one or two assertions in DWS's message are, to my mind, questionable. DWS wrote: [snip] > I think this is a considerable and unnecessary stretch of L44. A > claim is a speeding up process of the playing [and therefore winning] of > tricks. L68 refers to a claim or concession of tricks. You are > assuming that tricks not played in the traditional manner are not tricks > but your view is at variance with the written Law. I do not think so. A "trick" as referred to in Laws 68-71 is not a "trick" as referred to in Law 44. Clearly, it cannot be, for the tricks referred to in Law 68 are hypothetical tricks, while Law 44 relates only to the procedure by which an actual, physical trick is created. It is this difference between the trick in Law 68 et seq and the trick in Law 44 that appears to me to be the critical point of this debate. There are, in effect, (at least) two kinds of "trick": [L68 tricks], which exist only in the minds of players in deciding whether to claim, to concede, to acquiesce in a claim or concession, or in the mind of a referee adjudicating a claim or concession; and [L44 tricks] which consist of four actual cards, and have been won by the highest trump or the highest card of the suit led. (There is, for completeness, a third kind of trick, which we might call [L12 tricks], that exist only in the mind of a referee assigning a score in place of a result actually obtained.) Michael is indeed assuming, as DWS says, that "[L68 tricks] not played in the traditional manner are not [L44 tricks]". However, this is not at variance with the written Law, but in perfect accord with it. > In view of that L64A2 refers to tricks and L68 makes it clear that > tricks include those after a claim. Yes, but the tricks in L64A2 are [L44 tricks] - they have actually been played, and a revoke has occurred on one of them. They cannot be equated with [L68 tricks] - or if they can, the equivalence is not immediately apparent to Michael and to me. Nor is there any direction in the Laws as to what form the equivalence might take, which is why this discussion has continued for the length of time that it has. Having read this entire thread a couple of times, to make sure that I have not missed anything, I see nothing that has provided a categorical answer to Fearghal's original question. In this position: 32 None None None None None None A A K A None None 2 None 2 South, on lead with no trumps, concedes the last two tricks. East has previously shown out of hearts, but did not win the trick on which he did so. East-West have won at least one trick after the trick on which East failed to follow suit to a heart. Is South entitled to two tricks (as he would be if he exited with his heart) or to one trick (as he would be if he exited with his club)? The words of Law 64A do not, in my view, in any way enable this question to be answered (at least, not if they are read in accordance with their meaning in the English language). That is to say, in my view neither Michael's argument nor the contrary argument is actually supported by the Laws, which are in this area incomplete. The difficulty is that the last two tricks are [L68 tricks] - and while it is possible to say that they have been won by East-West, it is not possible to say with which cards they have been won. (To dispose of a side issue, if hearts were trumps, it would at any rate be reasonable to assert that at least one of the last two tricks has been won by East's ace of trumps, resulting in a penalty of two tricks.) David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 14 17:08:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9E76f624943 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 17:06:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hunter2.int.kiev.ua (hunter2.int.kiev.ua [195.123.4.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e9E76Wt24938 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 17:06:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from marina (ppp02.int.kiev.ua [195.123.4.102]) by hunter2.int.kiev.ua (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA02042 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 10:12:59 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <003201c035ad$9b4e7b00$66047bc3@marina> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 10:03:05 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote >I don't have the minutes for Lille or >Maastricht; if they were posted >on BLML, I failed to make a copy of them. I >can't find them anywhere >on the WBF web page (should they be available >there?). "Laws Committee Minutes from Maastricht" are available on the http://www.ecatsbridge.com/BiB/b2/default.asp Sergey -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 14 17:10:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9E7ALQ24960 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 17:10:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9E7ACt24951 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 17:10:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.9] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13kLSB-000GUd-00; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 08:10:00 +0100 Message-ID: <002001c035ad$fb1efbe0$095908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" Cc: "Steve Willner" , "bridge-laws" References: <200010131818.OAA05355@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 07:47:17 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01C035B2.F98EA5A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: 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_01C035B2.F98EA5A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Grattan Endicott "A public-opinion poll is no substitute for thought." - Warren Buffett ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Willner To: Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 7:18 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke > David: any chance you could collect the Bermuda and Maastricht minutes > and add them to your very useful page? > -- +=+ See attachments. I have not checked to see that any typing errors have been eliminated. ~ G ~ ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C035B2.F98EA5A0 Content-Type: text/plain; name="Minutes of the first meeting.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Minutes of the first meeting.txt" Minutes of the Meeting of the WBF Laws Committee in Maastricht, August 30th 2000. Present: =20 T. Kooijman (Chairman) J. Ortiz-Patino (WBF President Emeritus)R. Cohen (Co Vice-Chairman) C. Martel (Co Vice-Chairman) G. Endicott (Secretary) J. Wignall (Drafting sub-committee Chairman) V. Anderson J. Gerard D. Morse J. Polisner (WBF General Counsel) A. Riccardi W. Schoder (WBF Chief Tournament Director) Guests: Robert S. Wolff (WBF Past President) R. Colker D. Stevenson L. Trent N. Wood Apologies: C. Dadoun, D.Davenport, S. Ghose, A. Kearse.=20 1. The Chairman made welcome all those attending this first meeting=20 in Maastricht of the Committee. 2. The Chief Tournament Director asked that the Committee expand upon its interpretation of Law 25B (see Section 3 of the minutes of 20th January 2000). The Committee ruled that until LHO calls it is authorized=20 information that the player may use if the player sees a call on the=20 tray that he has not previously observed, the tray not having fully=20 passed under the screen. 3. Discussing the text of a reported appeal decision, the Committee = noted that an appeals committee which believes a Director has=20 ruled incorrectly as to a matter of Law should invite the Chief=20 Director to review the application of law. A committee may,=20 however, alter the Director's ruling where it finds differently from=20 =09 =09 2. the Director as to the facts (although this may be an infrequent=20 occurrence). 4. The Chief Director asked the committee to take note of the fact that an appeal under Law 92 is an appeal of a Director's ruling. The ruling exists and it is for the appeals committee to uphold it or=20 to vary it. 5. The Committee considered the possible interpretations of the=20 footnote to Laws 69,70 and 71. It was agreed that the footnote has=20 not been worded clearly. The Committee invites the copyright=20 holders to change this footnote when next printing the laws, so=20 that it will read: "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71,=20 'normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior, but not=20 irrational, for the class of player involved." In the meantime the correct interpretation of the current footnote=20 is in accordance with the revision of the wording to be made. 6. The Committee examined a statement that "When bidding boxes are in use the attempt to correct an inadvertent call (Law 25A)=20 must follow instantaneously upon the player's discovery of his mistake. (Should LHO have meanwhile made a call over the=20 player's first call Laws 25A, 21B and 16C apply)." The Committee finds this principle acceptable and urges regulating authorities to = incorporate it (or an alternative statement) in their tournament=20 regulations. Directors are recommended, where there is no=20 regulation to cover the point, to follow the above guidelines. 7. The Committee discussed the word =EDnadvertent' used in the laws.=20 A guest suggested that an action is inadvertent if, at the time the=20 player makes it, he decides one course of action but actually does=20 something else through misadventure in speaking, writing or=20 selecting a bidding card. Mr. Wignall made observation that the=20 etymology of the word indicates a turning away of the mind, so=20 that the action does not occur as a conscious process of the mind. The Committee acquiesced in the views expressed. 8. Mr. Martel spoke as to the difference in an all-expert game and = =20 any other in diagnosis of psychic action. The Committee did not =20 support any view that in the sequence =20 P =96 P =96 1H =96 1NT ? the Dealer, having eleven HCP, could now do other than double.=20 3.=09 The Committee then commented upon the question of=20 development of partnership understandings about psychic action. The view taken is that a partnership understanding exists when the frequency of occurrence is sufficient for the partner of a=20 psycher to take his awareness of psychic possibilities into=20 account, whether he does so or not. =20 When a partnership understanding as to psychic action exists it is subject to regulation under the laws as being part of the methods=20 of the partnership. 9. The Committee addressed any situation when, as the result of an irregularity, a result cannot be obtained and an artificial adjusted=20 score would normally be awarded. If a non-offending side would be=20 disadvantaged by an award of average plus (60%, or higher where=20 Law 88 allows) the Committee does not consider a higher=20 percentage may be awarded under Law 12C1. If the circumstances=20 allow the Director may assign a score under Law 12A1 or Law 84E.=20 The Committee adjourned at this point and appointed a time for a =20 further meeting. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C035B2.F98EA5A0 Content-Type: text/plain; name="Second meeting.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Second meeting.txt" Minutes of the meeting of the WBF Laws Committee Maastricht, 4th September, 2000. Present: T. Kooijman (Chairman)=09 R. Cohen (Co Vice-Chairman) C. Martel (Co Vice-Chairman) G. Endicott (Secretary) V. Anderson J. Auken J. Gerard D. Morse J. Polisner (WBF General Counsel) A. Riccardi W. Schoder (WBF Chief Tournament Director) J. Wignall (Drafting sub-committee Chairman)=09 =09 Guests: R. Colker D. Stevenson L. Trent H. De Wael N. Wood Apologies: The President Emeritus and as for the previous meeting. 1. At the request of an appeals committee chairman the Committee=20 considered the circumstances of an appeal which had been=20 adjudicated. A player had made a claim by showing his cards and=20 informing defenders that on the basis of the known information he=20 would make his contract through a double squeeze. His opponent=20 had requested him to play out the cards and, in violation of Law=20 68D, declarer had done so. In the play that followed, subsequently=20 voided by the Director under Law 68D, he failed to fulfil his=20 contract as claimed. The Declarer now called for the Director who=20 declared the subsequent play of the cards to be void and=20 determined that as between expert players it was clear the=20 statement of claim lacked nothing for clarity, the play of the=20 squeeze being perfectly evident. The opponents stated that=20 declarer had demonstrated that he could be careless in executing=20 the squeeze. When the matter had come to appeal the appeals committee had=20 supported the Director in ignoring all play subsequent to the claim=20 and in finding that the statement of claim, each player respecting=20 =09 2. the abilities of the other, contained no flaw. The Laws Committee=20 agreed that the voided play in such a situation is wholly null and=20 shall not be given any attention in determining the validity of the=20 claim. When the statement is made an opponent who has any=20 doubt about it must summon the Director at once; play must cease=20 entirely. The questions of irrationality, inferiority or carelessness=20 must be judged in relation to the statement accompanying the=20 claim and the lines of play that are not excluded by the=20 statement. On the occasion in question the appeals committee=20 found that the intended play was entirely clear from the=20 statement, but in any case the continuation of the play of the=20 cards was void and could not affect the issue. 2. The Committee discussed the stages for the next General Review=20 of the Laws. The plan so far in prospect was that the Review=20 proper should commence in Montreal, August 2002, with the=20 revised Code of Laws being published in 2005. It was agreed that=20 the revision might be published in 2004, should the efficiency and=20 speed of the review allow of it. The Committee felt that an early=20 establishment of a drafting sub-committee is desirable. In the=20 period from September 2000 to July 2002 the drafting sub- committee should be giving attention to the underlying=20 philosophies of the laws, the style of their presentation, and the=20 orderly assembly of subjects to be examined. To this end the=20 Secretary should invite proposals and observations from=20 appropriate sources and distribute them to the sub-committee.=20 Some subjects and aspects that deserve attention were=20 mentioned. 3. The Committee acknowledged its responsibility for a review also=20 of the Laws of Contract Bridge, both in relation to traditional=20 rubber bridge and in relation to the form known as 'Chicago'=20 which is popular in many places. The Secretary reported his=20 knowledge that the Portland Club is giving attention to the subject=20 and it was agreed he should invite Mr. Davenport of that club to=20 liaise directly with Mr. Ralph Cohen who would provide in=20 particular material relating to 'Chicago'. The Committee would=20 look forward to hearing from them when they had assembled=20 proposals for its consideration. 4. Detailed attention was given to an interim report on drafting of=20 laws for on-line (i.e. electronic) bridge. Substantial progress had=20 3. been made by a group comprising Messrs. Kooijman, Wignall,=20 Endicott, and Segraves. Bill Segraves has proved a tower of=20 strength in co-ordinating the work and in developing text. The=20 Committee recorded its admiration of, and respect for, his efforts.=20 A number of ideas and recommendations were noted for the=20 attention of the working group. The Committee expressed its=20 pleasure at the prospect of having final proposals for the text and=20 presentation of on-line laws in the not-distant future. It was=20 agreed to hold a further meeting of no great duration in order to=20 have a look at one or two paragraphs of the interim report not so=20 far addressed. The meeting then adjourned. =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C035B2.F98EA5A0 Content-Type: text/plain; name="Minutes of the third meeting.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Minutes of the third meeting.txt" Minutes of the meeting of the WBF Laws=20 Committee in Maastricht on 6th September, 2000. =09 Present: T. Kooijman (Chair) R. Cohen (Co Vice-Chairman) G. Endicott (Secretary) V. Anderson J. Gerard D. Morse J. Polisner (WBF General Counsel) A. Riccardi W. Schoder (WBF Chief Tournament Director) J. Wignall (Drafting sub-committee Chairman) Guest D. Stevenson 1. The minutes of the meeting on 4th September 2000 were agreed=20 after slight amendment. 2. There was further comment upon the interim report of the On- line Laws drafting sub-committee. This took the committee up=20 to and including Law 79. There being no further time available=20 the remainder was remitted to the Executive unexamined (and to have the further attention of the sub-committee). 3. It was agreed that when the draft incorporated the matters=20 raised in the Committee's meetings in Maastricht it should be=20 sent to On-line Game Providers as a consultative document and=20 their feedback obtained. 4. The Committee hoped that the Executive Council would=20 approve of the work as far as it has gone. 5. The Chairman thanked committee members for their work in=20 the three meetings held in Maastricht and closed the meeting. -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- The Secretary may be contacted at: 14 Elmswood Court, Palmerston Road, Liverpool L18 8DJ, UK. email: Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk or: gester@globalnet.co.uk Fax: (44) 151 724 1484. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C035B2.F98EA5A0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 14 17:10:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9E7AP624961 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 17:10:25 +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 e9E7AGt24956 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 17:10:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.9] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13kLSP-000GUd-00; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 08:10:13 +0100 Message-ID: <002201c035ae$03140840$095908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" References: <3.0.1.32.20001012213022.01213010@pop.mindspring.com><67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6B7@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl><3.0.1.32.20001012213022.01213010@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001013163228.012260d8@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 08:10:15 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "A public-opinion poll is no substitute for thought." - Warren Buffett ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael S. Dennis To: Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 9:32 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke . > Left unanswered by > most of you is the question raised by this interpretation: by what legal > standard are we to judge whether an unplayed card has actually won an > unplayed trick? +=+ By the adjudication of the Director/AC and the basis upon which it is made, perhaps? Have these not judged what tricks are won and how? ~ 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 Oct 14 22:01:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9EC09b25130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 22:00:09 +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 e9EC02t25126 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 22:00:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivet5n.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.116.183]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA25141 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 07:59:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001014075931.0121c66c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 07:59:31 -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: <002201c035ae$03140840$095908c3@dodona> References: <3.0.1.32.20001012213022.01213010@pop.mindspring.com> <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6B7@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3.0.1.32.20001012213022.01213010@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001013163228.012260d8@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 08:10 AM 10/14/2000 +0100, Grattan wrote: >> Left unanswered by >> most of you is the question raised by this interpretation: by what >legal >> standard are we to judge whether an unplayed card has actually won >an >> unplayed trick? > >+=+ By the adjudication of the Director/AC and >the basis upon which it is made, perhaps? Have >these not judged what tricks are won and how? Obviously, they are required to. But if they interpret L64A2 as embracing unplayed cards and unplayed tricks, they are left with no legal guidance as to how this might be accomplished. The result is an ad hoc decision that cannot be defended with reference to the Laws. Is it really desirable that adjudicators should be making up the rules as they go along? That seems inconsonant with the estimable purpose motivating your efforts to promulgate the CoP. 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 Oct 14 22:04:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9EC3vg25144 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 22:03:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe37.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9EC3pt25140 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 22:03:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 05:03:43 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [205.208.128.136] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <3.0.1.32.20001012213022.01213010@pop.mindspring.com><67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6B7@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl><3.0.1.32.20001012213022.01213010@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001013163228.012260d8@pop.mindspring.com> <002201c035ae$03140840$095908c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 07:06:08 -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 Oct 2000 12:03:43.0997 (UTC) FILETIME=[CCB39AD0:01C035D6] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Grattan Endicott To: ; Michael S. Dennis Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2000 2:10 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke | Grattan Endicott | To: | Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 9:32 PM | Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke | | | . | > Left unanswered by | > most of you is the question raised by this interpretation: by what | legal | > standard are we to judge whether an unplayed card has actually won | an | > unplayed trick? | | +=+ By the adjudication of the Director/AC and | the basis upon which it is made, perhaps? Have | these not judged what tricks are won and how? | ~ Grattan ~ +=+ A regulation that adjudicates that upon a claim by a non revoker that for an unstated line the cards are 'played' in the less advantageous order [with regards to L64] for the revoking side is a violation of L80F. This is because L70 specifies that doubtful points are ruled unfavorably to claimer. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 15 04:36:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9EIYqv25451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 04:34:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9EIYkt25447 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 04:34:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13kOdh-000FPO-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 10:34:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 02:22:06 +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: <200010131818.OAA05355@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200010131818.OAA05355@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: >David: any chance you could collect the Bermuda and Maastricht minutes >and add them to your very useful page? Flattery gets you everywhere. The trouble is that pure minutes do not really fit in with the current arrangements very well. Still, I could have a WBFLC minutes page for download, perhaps. Yes, I expect I could - well, if someone gives me the Bermuda minutes, then I could, anyway! I have the Maastricht minutes. -- 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 Oct 15 05:54:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9EJrrr25500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 05:53:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9EJrjt25496 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 05:53:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9ED2na03333 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 13:02:49 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: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 12:48:20 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <3.0.1.32.20001012213022.01213010@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001013163228.012260d8@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20001013163228.012260d8@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00101413024801.03328@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 13 Oct 2000, Michael S. Dennis wrote: > My position is that this language does not allow us to treat tricks won by > claim or concession as having been won by any particular card (since no > such card can be legally played), and that therefore such tricks cannot > count toward meeting the condition needed to enforce a 2-trick penalty > under L64A2. Whatever else you can say about it, my approach does provide > the virtue of a clear and simple procedure, and not incidentally, does > provide an answer to the original question. I'm sorry you think this > unhelpful. Here's a reductio ad absurdum. Declarer has one high trump left in each hand. He leads dummy's last trump to draw a defender's trump, discards from his own hand, and leads to the next trick. There is now only one trump left in play, and it is the card declarer should have played to the revoke trick. If declarer plays the rest of the hand out, he will win a trick with that last trump, and there will be a two-trick penalty. Declarer, aware of the revoke, chooses to claim the thirteenth trick rather than leading to it. (Or if that is not a valid claim, let him claim the last two tricks with a side winner and the last trump.) Is the penalty now only one trick? My interpretation of the claim laws is that play ceases after a claim, and the result is adjudicated, if necessary, based on normal lines of play which are consistent with the claimer's statement. A line of play is interpreted as if the cards were actually played. If declarer claims when the CK is a penalty card, for example, he may claim based on the CK being played at the first legal opportunity. How would you rule in such cases? If there is no "play" after a claim, then the obligation to play the CK is meaningless. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Oct 15 06:04:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9EK4Nn25523 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 06:04:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9EK4Gt25519 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 06:04:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9EDDNY03350 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 13:13:23 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Comment on Maastricht minuted Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 13:08:32 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00101413132302.03328@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk What is the meaning of this interpretation? >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. I would interpret this as saying that a ruling of "+120 or average-plus, whichever is better" is not allowed if the +120 is not a bridge result, but if +120 was obtained at the table and the TD believes that average-plus is a correct adjusted score for the irregularity (which many TD's believe is allowed), then L12A comes into play automatically, as the Laws provide insufficient indemnity if E-W's infraction caused N-S to get a 60% score when they already had 80% without it. -- 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 Sun Oct 15 10:26:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9F0PXO25795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 10:25:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9F0PQt25791 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 10:25:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13kbc9-000PTq-0A; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 00:25:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 01:20:58 +0100 To: Grattan Endicott Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, "Michael S. Dennis" From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke References: <3.0.1.32.20001012213022.01213010@pop.mindspring.com> <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6B7@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3.0.1.32.20001012213022.01213010@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001013163228.012260d8@pop.mindspring.com> <002201c035ae$03140840$095908c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <002201c035ae$03140840$095908c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 S Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In message <002201c035ae$03140840$095908c3@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott >"A public-opinion poll is no substitute for thought." > - Warren Buffett > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Michael S. Dennis >To: >Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 9:32 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke > > IMO the TD plays the cards in order to adjudicate the claim and assesses which tricks are won by which side. These cards are played by the TD acting as agent for the players making and contesting the claim. Otherwise the TD is unable to adjudicate. Having performed this exercise (maybe more than once) he will adjudicate the claim as required by the Laws. I see *no* problem with this and find that Mike is asking the question "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin" cheers john >. >> Left unanswered by >> most of you is the question raised by this interpretation: by what >legal >> standard are we to judge whether an unplayed card has actually won >an >> unplayed trick? > >+=+ By the adjudication of the Director/AC and >the basis upon which it is made, perhaps? Have >these not judged what tricks are won and how? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Oct 15 10:45:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9F0j2h25818 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 10:45:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9F0iut25814 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 10:44:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivet27.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.116.71]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA29611 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 20:44:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001014163034.012219f8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 16:30:34 -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: <00101413024801.03328@psa836> References: <3.0.1.32.20001013163228.012260d8@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001012213022.01213010@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001013163228.012260d8@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 12:48 PM 10/14/2000 +0000, David G wrote: >Here's a reductio ad absurdum. Declarer has one high trump left in >each hand. He leads dummy's last trump to draw a defender's trump, >discards from his own hand, and leads to the next trick. There is >now only one trump left in play, and it is the card declarer should >have played to the revoke trick. If declarer plays the rest of the hand >out, he will win a trick with that last trump, and there will be a >two-trick penalty. > >Declarer, aware of the revoke, chooses to claim the thirteenth trick >rather than leading to it. (Or if that is not a valid claim, let him >claim the last two tricks with a side winner and the last trump.) Is >the penalty now only one trick? David S provided a similar example. In the first place, there is an ambiguity about the term "player" in L64A1. Shall we say that a trick won in the dummy on a revoke from declarer was, or was not, won "by the offending player"? I don't have a strong feeling about this either way, and would not choose to argue with anyone who judged that the trick was indeed won by the offending player, and on that basis awarded a two-trick penalty. But if we read L64A1 as distinguishing between a trick won in the closed hand from a trick won in dummy, then yes, my reading of L64A2 is that a mere one-trick penalty is in order. Of course I reserve the right to consider all aspects of the play after the revoke, and award whatever tricks may be necessary to restore the equity of the NOS if, for example, by following suit declarer would have been shut off from the necessary winning tricks in his own hand. Is this really so absurdum? There seems to be a consensus that the NOS are automatically entitled by the revoke Laws to equity plus a bonus trick (or two). But that is patent nonsense. There are many examples where the effect of L64 is merely to restore equity, with no bonus tricks awarded at all. Consider this to be one such example. >My interpretation of the claim laws is that play ceases after a claim, >and the result is adjudicated, if necessary, based on normal lines of >play which are consistent with the claimer's statement. True, but irrelevant. Your interpretation derives, presumably, from the procedural requirements of L70, which instructs us about how to proceed when a claim is contested. It does not follow that all contested issues subsequent to a claim or concession are handled in the same way. This is actually the valid point made by some who have argued against the relevance of the language in L70A that states that "any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer." >A line of play is interpreted as if the cards were actually played. If declarer >claims when the CK is a penalty card, for example, he may claim based >on the CK being played at the first legal opportunity. How would you >rule in such cases? If there is no "play" after a claim, then the >obligation to play the CK is meaningless. I would rule on the basis that the language of L64A2 is not germane to the problem of adjudicating a contested claim, and would follow the procedures of L70 to handle the issue, as would you, presumably. Mike Dennis -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 15 11:45:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9F1jQ325857 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 11:45:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9F1jKt25853 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 11:45:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13kcrU-000IL7-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 02:45:16 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 02:42:39 +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: <200010131818.OAA05355@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200010131818.OAA05355@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: >David: any chance you could collect the Bermuda and Maastricht minutes >and add them to your very useful page? http://blakjak.com/wbf_lcmn.htm *But* I do not have Bermuda yet. Actually, now I am doing it properly in downloadabale files, what about Lille? -- 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 Oct 15 17:31:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9F7ThY26071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 17:29:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9F7Tat26067 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 17:29:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.197] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13kiEd-0009er-00; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 08:29:32 +0100 Message-ID: <003101c03679$e08f3c00$c55608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <200010131818.OAA05355@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 08:19:17 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "A public-opinion poll is no substitute for thought." - Warren Buffett ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2000 2:42 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke > Steve Willner wrote: > > >David: any chance you could collect the Bermuda and Maastricht minutes > >and add them to your very useful page? > > http://blakjak.com/wbf_lcmn.htm > > *But* I do not have Bermuda yet. Actually, now I am doing it properly > in downloadabale files, what about Lille? > +=+ You have had Bermuda since yesterday! As for Lille I do not find them saved here at Hermes; when I go in on Monday I will look at 'gester' to see if I saved them there (the machines are not linked).. If not, a hard copy may be the best I can do. I am uncertain about Panos. I do not think he puts up minutes; he should have the laws and the CoP up. ~ 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 Oct 15 17:39:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9F7dm926088 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 17:39:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9F7dgt26084 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 17:39:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcaug2m.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.64.86]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id DAA01882 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 03:39:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001501c0367b$0fac47c0$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "blml" References: <3.0.1.32.20001012213022.01213010@pop.mindspring.com><67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6B7@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl><3.0.1.32.20001012213022.01213010@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001013163228.012260d8@pop.mindspring.com> <002201c035ae$03140840$095908c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 03:39:33 -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: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2000 8:06 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Grattan Endicott > To: ; Michael S. Dennis > Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2000 2:10 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke > > > | Grattan Endicott > | ----- Original Message ----- > | From: Michael S. Dennis > | To: > | Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 9:32 PM > | Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke > | > | > | . > | > Left unanswered by > | > most of you is the question raised by this interpretation: by what > | legal > | > standard are we to judge whether an unplayed card has actually won > | an > | > unplayed trick? > | > | +=+ By the adjudication of the Director/AC and > | the basis upon which it is made, perhaps? Have > | these not judged what tricks are won and how? > | ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > A regulation that adjudicates that upon a claim by a non revoker that > for an unstated line the cards are 'played' in the less advantageous > order [with regards to L64] for the revoking side is a violation of > L80F. This is because L70 specifies that doubtful points are ruled > unfavorably to claimer. > > Roger Pewick > Houston, Texas > I'm going to summarize what I think this is about, since I've lost the thread. Declarer has 11 stone cold tricks, and no normal line of play for a 12th. Declarer takes his winners and concedes the remaining two tricks. It turns out that a defender has revoked, and Declarer had an option to force that defender to win a card that could legally have been played to the revoke trick. (Note that this is a concession, not a claim, so L70 is irrelevant). Just to bring L70 into it, let's have Declarer claim at trick 10, claiming his remaining winner and then conceding the remainder. What's the problem with either the claim and where's the doubt? Declarer has 11 tricks, all doubtful points having been resolved against the claimer. That settles the claim/concession. Now we rule on the revoke. There are two possible results. The revoking side loses one penalty trick, or it loses two penalty tricks. Do we know whether the defending side won a trick with a card that could have been played to the revoke trick? No, in this case, had there been no claim there is a 50/50 chance either way. We can rule 12 tricks, giving the benefit of the doubt to the revoker, or 13 tricks giving the benefit of the doubt to the NOS. The general principle is that the NOS gets the benefit of the doubt (see 84E). Two trick penalty. If the defender would not have won the trick on normal lines of play, one trick penalty. If the revoke was exposed during play, so that failure to take advantage of it represents a clear error by Declarer, one trick (most of the time, anyway). This approach has two benefits I can see. It maintains the principle of resolving doubt in favor of the NOS. It also doesn't punish a player for conceding when he has no possible way to win a trick. As others have noted, we want to keep the game moving, not have everyone play the hand out in case an opponent has revoked. 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 Oct 15 19:22:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9F9M8W26179 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 19:22:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f29.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.29]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9F9M2t26175 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 19:22:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 02:21:54 -0700 Received: from 172.159.247.90 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 09:21:54 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.159.247.90] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 02:21:54 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Oct 2000 09:21:54.0746 (UTC) FILETIME=[5BF339A0:01C03689] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Hirsch Davis" >----- Original Message ----- >I'm going to summarize what I think this is about, since I've lost the >thread. Declarer has 11 stone cold tricks, and no normal line of play >for a 12th. Declarer takes his winners and concedes the remaining two >tricks. It turns out that a defender has revoked, and Declarer had an >option to force that defender to win a card that could legally have >been played to the revoke trick. (Note that this is a concession, not >a claim, so L70 is irrelevant). Just to bring L70 into it, let's have >Declarer claim at trick 10, claiming his remaining winner and then >conceding the remainder. What's the problem with either the claim and >where's the doubt? Declarer has 11 tricks, all doubtful points having >been resolved against the claimer. That settles the claim/concession. Whether or not L70 is irrelevant is still up for debate. >Now we rule on the revoke. There are two possible results. The >revoking side loses one penalty trick, or it loses two penalty tricks. >Do we know whether the defending side won a trick with a card that >could have been played to the revoke trick? No, in this case, had >there been no claim there is a 50/50 chance either way. We can rule >12 tricks, giving the benefit of the doubt to the revoker, or 13 >tricks giving the benefit of the doubt to the NOS. The general >principle is that the NOS gets the benefit of the doubt (see 84E). >Two trick penalty. If the defender would not have won the trick on >normal lines of play, one trick penalty. If the revoke was exposed >during play, so that failure to take advantage of it represents a >clear error by Declarer, one trick (most of the time, anyway). What's the motive for L64A? In case 1 you lose the trick you won when you revoked and another one for good measure. In case 2 you lose the one for good measure and another one if by your revoke you've established a subsequent trick. At least this is the best I can tell. But it doesn't work that way. You can revoke and win a subsequent trick with a card you could have played to the revoke trick that always would have won. AD is played, you pitch a heart making your singleton KD good. Win a trick later with the KD, lose two. Trump is played, you throw some thing else. Lose two if you hold the ace of trump, lose only one if you hold the 2&3 of trump. Case 2 tries to mirror case 1 in that you may not win the trick on which you revoke, but you want to apply a two trick penalty in the case that your revoke trick could have established a winner. Not that it actually did. However, given this model, the revoking side is denied its brilliance to pitch a winner it always held and did not establish through the revoke when declarer claims. Even case 1 doesn't seem to meet the mettle. A declarer in 7NT with 14 top tricks revokes to the first trick before claiming. Suffer two, rather than the more seemingly equitable 1. Would someone with a better grasp of the motive for L64A correct this? >This approach has two benefits I can see. It maintains the principle >of resolving doubt in favor of the NOS. It also doesn't punish a >player for conceding when he has no possible way to win a trick. As >others have noted, we want to keep the game moving, not have everyone >play the hand out in case an opponent has revoked. An across the board two trick penalty also solves this problem, assuming starting at the revoke trick that two tricks have been subsequently won by the revoking side. Or, a one-trick penalty + an additional trick penalty for every trick established by the revoke and currently or subsequently won. After all, you can establish several tricks with a revoking holdup in NT contracts and as is L12A1 must come into play when that happens. And while we're on it, 64B6 is stupid. A K - - 2 3 2 3 - - - - K A - - Whatever is led the other suit is trump. Anyone care for a penalty-free revoke on the 12th trick? -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 Oct 15 19:24:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9F9NI726193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 19:23:18 +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 e9F9NBt26187 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 19:23:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.35] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13kk0Z-000Ar6-00; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 10:23:07 +0100 Message-ID: <005401c03689$bef94300$c55608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" References: <3.0.1.32.20001013163228.012260d8@pop.mindspring.com><3.0.1.32.20001012213022.01213010@pop.mindspring.com><3.0.1.32.20001013163228.012260d8@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001014163034.012219f8@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 08:47:21 +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 "A public-opinion poll is no substitute for thought." - Warren Buffett ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael S. Dennis To: Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2000 9:30 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke > ----------------- \x/ --------------- > David S provided a similar example. In the >first place, there is an ambiguity about the > term "player" in L64A1. Shall we say that a > trick won in the dummy on a revoke from > declarer was, or was not, won "by the offending > player"? I don't have a strong feeling about > this either way, and would not choose to argue > with anyone who judged that the trick was > indeed won by the offending player, and on > that basis awarded a two-trick penalty. --------------- \x/ ------------- > +=+ To quote the WBF statement on this I will need to dig up the 1984/7 papers again. As I recollect it was established that, for the purpose of Law 64, when declarer revokes in his own hand a trick won in dummy is not "won by the offending player". I will follow this subject when I have done my digging. ~ 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 Oct 15 19:24:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9F9NOr26197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 19:23:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9F9NHt26192 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 19:23:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.35] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13kk0a-000Ar6-00; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 10:23:09 +0100 Message-ID: <005501c03689$c0044a60$c55608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John (MadDog) Probst" Cc: , "Michael S. Dennis" References: <3.0.1.32.20001012213022.01213010@pop.mindspring.com><67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6B7@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl><3.0.1.32.20001012213022.01213010@pop.mindspring.com><3.0.1.32.20001013163228.012260d8@pop.mindspring.com><002201c035ae$03140840$095908c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 08:51:05 +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 "A public-opinion poll is no substitute for thought." - Warren Buffett ----- Original Message ----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: Grattan Endicott Cc: ; Michael S. Dennis Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2000 1:20 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke > I see *no* problem with this and find that Mike is asking the > question "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin" > +=+ And, of course, the prior question is whether angels *can* dance on the head of a pin +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Oct 15 20:24:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9FANSB26248 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 20:23:28 +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-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 e9FANJt26244 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 20:23:19 +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 13kkwj-000Mpi-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 11:23:14 +0100 Message-ID: <8KyRSeAcRR65Ew6s@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 03:20:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Comment on Maastricht minuted References: <00101413132302.03328@psa836> In-Reply-To: <00101413132302.03328@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: >What is the meaning of this interpretation? > >>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. > >I would interpret this as saying that a ruling of "+120 or >average-plus, whichever is better" is not allowed if the +120 is not a >bridge result, but if +120 was obtained at the table and the TD >believes that average-plus is a correct adjusted score for the >irregularity (which many TD's believe is allowed), then L12A comes into >play automatically, as the Laws provide insufficient indemnity if E-W's >infraction caused N-S to get a 60% score when they already had 80% >without it. Sorry, I seem to have lost my Grabiner-English dictionary. Or to put it another way, David, despite reading this thrice, I have no clue what you are saying, so perhaps you could run it past me again? -- 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 Oct 15 20:52:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9FAqgb26284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 20:52:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9FAqWt26271 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 20:52:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-117.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.117]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA17135 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 12:52:26 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39E817CC.C7E52174@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 10:22:36 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke References: <015d01c03397$05a74360$71b6f1c3@kooijman> <3.0.1.32.20001011215632.0121528c@pop.mindspring.com> <005d01c03568$addd3440$af8801d5@D457300> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk As usual, David B makes a lot of sense. This issue is not resolved. Let's complicate further. David Burn wrote: > > > I do not think so. A "trick" as referred to in Laws 68-71 is not a > "trick" as referred to in Law 44. Clearly, it cannot be, for the tricks > referred to in Law 68 are hypothetical tricks, while Law 44 relates only > to the procedure by which an actual, physical trick is created. It is > this difference between the trick in Law 68 et seq and the trick in Law > 44 that appears to me to be the critical point of this debate. There > are, in effect, (at least) two kinds of "trick": [L68 tricks], which > exist only in the minds of players in deciding whether to claim, to > concede, to acquiesce in a claim or concession, or in the mind of a > referee adjudicating a claim or concession; and [L44 tricks] which > consist of four actual cards, and have been won by the highest trump or > the highest card of the suit led. (There is, for completeness, a third > kind of trick, which we might call [L12 tricks], that exist only in the > mind of a referee assigning a score in place of a result actually > obtained.) > > Michael is indeed assuming, as DWS says, that "[L68 tricks] not played > in the traditional manner are not [L44 tricks]". However, this is not at > variance with the written Law, but in perfect accord with it. > > > In view of that L64A2 refers to tricks and L68 makes it clear that > > tricks include those after a claim. > > Yes, but the tricks in L64A2 are [L44 tricks] - they have actually been > played, and a revoke has occurred on one of them. They cannot be equated > with [L68 tricks] - or if they can, the equivalence is not immediately > apparent to Michael and to me. Nor is there any direction in the Laws as > to what form the equivalence might take, which is why this discussion > has continued for the length of time that it has. > OK. There is a fourth kind of trick. [L64 tricks] Tricks that have been transferred after a revoke. Remember the case in Kalmthout, of a few years back. West plays a suit. Dummy ruffs. East overruffs. Declarer overruffs. Both East and declarer have another in the led suit. Declarer makes all subsequent tricks. By the claim law, Declarer must hand over 2 tricks, and east should hand over 1 trick - but he hasn't won any, unless we count [L64 tricks]. I believe that (at least) Ton has agreed that in this case there is only a one trick penalty. Which means that [L64 tricks] can also be transferred. I don't believe this principle has made it through the WBFLC yet. Which begs one last question : Can [L12 tricks] be transferred ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 15 20:53:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9FAqlH26286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 20:52:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9FAqbt26278 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 20:52:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-117.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.117]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA17149 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 12:52:33 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39E81C40.A9DCE57F@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 10:41:36 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke References: <5.0.0.25.0.20001013172135.00a5b030@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Bley wrote: > > > I thought it was "usual" to decide any doubt against the claimer > > Richard > Nope, not any more, by a WBFLC decision from Lille -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 15 20:52:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9FAqjT26285 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 20:52:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9FAqYt26272 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 20:52:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-117.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.117]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA17143 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 12:52:30 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39E818E5.5D9477A3@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 10:27:17 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke References: <3.0.1.32.20001011215632.0121528c@pop.mindspring.com> <015d01c03397$05a74360$71b6f1c3@kooijman> <3.0.1.32.20001011215632.0121528c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001013163335.01218750@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: > > > Consider the simple case from the original problem. Unaware that there has > been a revoke, declarer at trick 12 can play a losing diamond, in which > case West wins the last two tricks, or a losing spade, in which case East > wins the last two tricks, including one with a card he could have played to > the revoke trick. In the first case, a one trick penalty, while in the > second, a two-trick penalty, despite the fact that the impact of the revoke > in the two instances is the same, and that South is entirely blameless in > choosing between two alternatives that appear identical. How can we justify > the distinction in these outcomes? > > Easy. We agree that a _somewhat_ arbitrary penalty for handling a > relatively common infraction is, on balance, a good thing, even though we > recognize that it will sometimes result in arbitrary distinctions between > what seem like entirely equivalent situations. > > L64A2 provides a factual test for determining when a two-trick penalty > should be awarded. It is a ridiculously easy test to apply, which is > appropriate since the situation is so common. Has a trick been "won by a > card which could have been played..."? Call me simple, but in order to meet > that condition, the card in question has to have been played to a trick, > and L68D makes clear that no such thing happens in any legal sense > subsequent to a claim or concession. > > Mike Dennis > Yes Mike, but you are putting the cart in front of the horse. Consider the far easier problem in which only one declarer, the revoker, can "make" the conceded tricks. Surely you are not suggesting that he shall not be subject to penalty tricks in this case ? Because then you are saying that playing on is more beneficial than claiming. Which is not what we want. So in order to achieve this, tricks conceded MUST be able to be transferable. And then only do we get to the problem where it is unclear which defender wins the conceded tricks. Which I agree is unresolved. But what's wrong with ruling in favour of non-revokers ? (I may remind readers that a WBFLC decision in Lille has the effect of ruoloing doubtful cases after a claim in favor of non-revokers rather than non-claimers). -- 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 Oct 16 00:28:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9FERNi26440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 00:27:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9FERGt26436 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 00:27:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp182-145.worldonline.nl [195.241.182.145]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id B8D7A36B37; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 16:26:54 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <009501c036b3$4cecb100$91b6f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "David Burn" , Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 13:45:31 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >That is to say, in my view neither Michael's argument nor the contrary >argument is actually supported by the Laws, which are in this area >incomplete. The difficulty is that the last two tricks are [L68 >tricks] - and while it is possible to say that they have been won by >East-West, it is not possible to say with which cards they have been >won. (To dispose of a side issue, if hearts were trumps, it would at any >rate be reasonable to assert that at least one of the last two tricks >has been won by East's ace of trumps, resulting in a penalty of two >tricks.) > >David Burn >London, England > We seem to agree David, which is normal as I remember well. In the example with Axxxx opposite Kxxx revoking the J from Jx gives a trick also after a claim (My expectation was that you would be silent for at least a year in all cases were claims are involved). And if both opposing sides can win tricks it is less obvious. I might be more convinced that the laws do say this, but the outcome is the same. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 16 00:47:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9FEl0J26468 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 00:47:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9FEknt26455 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 00:46:50 +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 13kp3h-0006dC-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 15:46:44 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 12:04:50 +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: <3.0.1.32.20001012213022.01213010@pop.mindspring.com> <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6B7@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3.0.1.32.20001012213022.01213010@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001013163228.012260d8@pop.mindspring.com> <002201c035ae$03140840$095908c3@dodona> <001501c0367b$0fac47c0$0200000a@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <001501c0367b$0fac47c0$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: >I'm going to summarize what I think this is about, since I've lost the >thread. Declarer has 11 stone cold tricks, and no normal line of play >for a 12th. Declarer takes his winners and concedes the remaining two >tricks. It turns out that a defender has revoked, and Declarer had an >option to force that defender to win a card that could legally have >been played to the revoke trick. (Note that this is a concession, not >a claim, so L70 is irrelevant). Just to bring L70 into it, let's have >Declarer claim at trick 10, claiming his remaining winner and then >conceding the remainder. What's the problem with either the claim and >where's the doubt? Declarer has 11 tricks, all doubtful points having >been resolved against the claimer. That settles the claim/concession. > >Now we rule on the revoke. There are two possible results. The >revoking side loses one penalty trick, or it loses two penalty tricks. >Do we know whether the defending side won a trick with a card that >could have been played to the revoke trick? No, in this case, had >there been no claim there is a 50/50 chance either way. We can rule >12 tricks, giving the benefit of the doubt to the revoker, or 13 >tricks giving the benefit of the doubt to the NOS. The general >principle is that the NOS gets the benefit of the doubt (see 84E). >Two trick penalty. If the defender would not have won the trick on >normal lines of play, one trick penalty. If the revoke was exposed >during play, so that failure to take advantage of it represents a >clear error by Declarer, one trick (most of the time, anyway). > >This approach has two benefits I can see. It maintains the principle >of resolving doubt in favor of the NOS. It also doesn't punish a >player for conceding when he has no possible way to win a trick. As >others have noted, we want to keep the game moving, not have everyone >play the hand out in case an opponent has revoked. Well, Hirsch, what you say here seems so obvious that I kept out of the thread for a long time. I am sure this is right for the right reasons. However, the thread seems to have drifted into whether a trick is a trick. There are three views. [1] A trick is played by putting little pieces of cardboard on a table, and thus we cannot possibly rule in the cited case because hte Law book does not cover it. [2] There are two sorts of trick which are totally dissimilar from each other to the extent they should have different names. Type A is played by putting little pieces of cardboard on a table. Type B is part of a claim. Since we do not use different names for the two we cannot distinguish them in the revoke Law so we have no idea whether we can rule in the cited case because we do not know whether the Law book covers it. [3] There are thirteen tricks in every hand and someone wins each one. Thus the Law is quite clear and we should rule as you say. That's it. We are having a whole thread about it. Great. -- 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 Oct 16 00:47:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9FEl2d26469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 00:47:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9FEkpt26458 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 00:46:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13kp3j-0006dE-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 15:46:48 +0100 Message-ID: <8yRetrAxJc65Ewoy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 15:42:57 +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: <200010131818.OAA05355@cfa183.harvard.edu> <003101c03679$e08f3c00$c55608c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <003101c03679$e08f3c00$c55608c3@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 >> http://blakjak.com/wbf_lcmn.htm >> >> *But* I do not have Bermuda yet. Actually, now I am doing it >properly >> in downloadabale files, what about Lille? >+=+ You have had Bermuda since yesterday! As for Lille >I do not find them saved here at Hermes; when I go in >on Monday I will look at 'gester' to see if I saved them >there (the machines are not linked).. If not, a hard copy >may be the best I can do. > I am uncertain about Panos. I do not think he puts >up minutes; he should have the laws and the CoP up. Bermuda is now there - BUT - Bermuda minutes say "The Appendices form part of these minutes" and there were no appendices! I shall have a little search further! -- 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 Oct 16 00:47:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9FEl8t26470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 00:47:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 e9FEkot26457 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 00:46:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13kp3h-0006dD-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 15:46:45 +0100 Message-ID: <3ngM4nA0BZ65Ew5q@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 12:09:40 +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: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch wrote: >>From: "Hirsch Davis" >>----- Original Message ----- >>I'm going to summarize what I think this is about, since I've lost the >>thread. Declarer has 11 stone cold tricks, and no normal line of play >>for a 12th. Declarer takes his winners and concedes the remaining two >>tricks. It turns out that a defender has revoked, and Declarer had an >>option to force that defender to win a card that could legally have >>been played to the revoke trick. (Note that this is a concession, not >>a claim, so L70 is irrelevant). Just to bring L70 into it, let's have >>Declarer claim at trick 10, claiming his remaining winner and then >>conceding the remainder. What's the problem with either the claim and >>where's the doubt? Declarer has 11 tricks, all doubtful points having >>been resolved against the claimer. That settles the claim/concession. > > Whether or not L70 is irrelevant is still up for debate. > >>Now we rule on the revoke. There are two possible results. The >>revoking side loses one penalty trick, or it loses two penalty tricks. >>Do we know whether the defending side won a trick with a card that >>could have been played to the revoke trick? No, in this case, had >>there been no claim there is a 50/50 chance either way. We can rule >>12 tricks, giving the benefit of the doubt to the revoker, or 13 >>tricks giving the benefit of the doubt to the NOS. The general >>principle is that the NOS gets the benefit of the doubt (see 84E). >>Two trick penalty. If the defender would not have won the trick on >>normal lines of play, one trick penalty. If the revoke was exposed >>during play, so that failure to take advantage of it represents a >>clear error by Declarer, one trick (most of the time, anyway). > > What's the motive for L64A? In case 1 you lose the trick you won >when you revoked and another one for good measure. In case 2 you lose >the one for good measure and another one if by your revoke you've >established a subsequent trick. At least this is the best I can tell. >But it doesn't work that way. You can revoke and win a subsequent trick >with a card you could have played to the revoke trick that always would >have won. AD is played, you pitch a heart making your singleton KD good. >Win a trick later with the KD, lose two. Trump is played, you throw some >thing else. Lose two if you hold the ace of trump, lose only one if you >hold the 2&3 of trump. Case 2 tries to mirror case 1 in that you may not >win the trick on which you revoke, but you want to apply a two trick >penalty in the case that your revoke trick could have established a >winner. Not that it actually did. However, given this model, the >revoking side is denied its brilliance to pitch a winner it always held >and did not establish through the revoke when declarer claims. > Even case 1 doesn't seem to meet the mettle. A declarer in 7NT >with 14 top tricks revokes to the first trick before claiming. Suffer >two, rather than the more seemingly equitable 1. > Would someone with a better grasp of the motive for L64A correct >this? It was meant to produce a rule that had a tendency to equate to one trick for luck and more when the revoke mattered. It does. >>This approach has two benefits I can see. It maintains the principle >>of resolving doubt in favor of the NOS. It also doesn't punish a >>player for conceding when he has no possible way to win a trick. As >>others have noted, we want to keep the game moving, not have everyone >>play the hand out in case an opponent has revoked. > > An across the board two trick penalty also solves this problem, >assuming starting at the revoke trick that two tricks have been >subsequently won by the revoking side. Or, a one-trick penalty + an >additional trick penalty for every trick established by the revoke and >currently or subsequently won. After all, you can establish several >tricks with a revoking holdup in NT contracts and as is L12A1 must come >into play when that happens. No, you don't need L12A1. L64C is fine. > And while we're on it, 64B6 is stupid. > > A > K > - > - > >2 3 >2 3 >- - >- - > > K > A > - > - > >Whatever is led the other suit is trump. Anyone care for a penalty-free >revoke on the 12th trick? So what? Gains nothing, loses nothing, big deal. -- 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 Oct 16 03:01:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9FGxeX26595 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 02:59:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9FGxXt26591 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 02:59:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivet5c.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.116.172]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA19255 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 12:59:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001015125906.01222504@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 12:59:06 -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: <001501c0367b$0fac47c0$0200000a@mindspring.com> References: <3.0.1.32.20001012213022.01213010@pop.mindspring.com> <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6B7@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3.0.1.32.20001012213022.01213010@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001013163228.012260d8@pop.mindspring.com> <002201c035ae$03140840$095908c3@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:39 AM 10/15/2000 -0400, Hirsch wrote: >Now we rule on the revoke. There are two possible results. The >revoking side loses one penalty trick, or it loses two penalty tricks. >Do we know whether the defending side won a trick with a card that >could have been played to the revoke trick? No, in this case, had >there been no claim there is a 50/50 chance either way. We can rule >12 tricks, giving the benefit of the doubt to the revoker, or 13 >tricks giving the benefit of the doubt to the NOS. The general >principle is that the NOS gets the benefit of the doubt (see 84E). >Two trick penalty. This "general principle" you have alluded to is a myth. The specific language of L84E is simply irrelevant to this discussion. "If an irregularity has occurred for which no penalty is provided by law, the Director awards an adjusted score if there is even a reasonable possibility that the non-offending side was damaged,..." An irregularity has occurred, to be sure, but a penalty is provided by law. The debate is only over what penalty is in fact prescribed by the Laws. We are not in any case arguing about whether the Director should award an adjusted score. 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 Oct 16 03:41:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9FHdMc26654 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 03:39:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9FHdFt26650 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 03:39:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivet5c.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.116.172]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA06051 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 13:39:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001015133232.01226064@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 13:32:32 -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: <39E818E5.5D9477A3@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.1.32.20001011215632.0121528c@pop.mindspring.com> <015d01c03397$05a74360$71b6f1c3@kooijman> <3.0.1.32.20001011215632.0121528c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001013163335.01218750@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 10:27 AM 10/14/2000 +0200, Herman wrote: > >Yes Mike, but you are putting the cart in front of the >horse. > >Consider the far easier problem in which only one declarer, >the revoker, can "make" the conceded tricks. > >Surely you are not suggesting that he shall not be subject >to penalty tricks in this case ? >Because then you are saying that playing on is more >beneficial than claiming. Which is not what we want. I'm not sure I completely understand your hypothetical case here, but I would like to respond to the general philosophical approach, which is one that has been suggested by others. It is the notion that we should base our interpretation of the Laws upon our judgement about how various interpretations of those Laws would affect the behavior of players. Adam has argued that if my approach is adopted, players will cease to claim/concede because of it, and you appear to be making the same point. David Stevenson provided a thoughtful example, the point of which seemed to be that under my interpretation, declarers would be motivated to stage elaborate maneuvers (in his case, an unblocking revoke) for the purpose of ending up with exactly as many tricks as they would be entitled to without resorting to such strategems. In the first place, as I said to Adam, I am skeptical. AFAIK, this is an extremely rare problem, and the Cassandra-like predictions of doom that would follow from reading the language of L64A2 as I suggest are, I believe, wildly overdrawn. But the main point is that these types of considerations have no proper place in the _application_ of the Laws. They are perfectly appropriate issues to be considered in writing the Laws, but not in parsing the written text for its meaning. If the WBFLC, in its wisdom, decides that 64A2 should be amended to explicitly include unplayed cards, then that will unquestionably be the law. I would expect that any such change would be accompanied by some instruction as to how the unplayed cards are to be assigned to the unplayed tricks, and that this formulation would be guided by an appreciation for the added burden placed upon the TD in what is supposed to be, after all, a relatively cut-and-dried procedure. 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 Oct 16 05:23:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9FJLcn26742 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 05:21:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f125.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.125]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9FJLWt26738 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 05:21:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 12:21:25 -0700 Received: from 172.141.84.163 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 19:21:24 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.141.84.163] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 12:21:24 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Oct 2000 19:21:25.0051 (UTC) FILETIME=[1BEC30B0:01C036DD] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson > > Would someone with a better grasp of the motive for L64A correct > >this? > > It was meant to produce a rule that had a tendency to equate to one >trick for luck and more when the revoke mattered. It does. I hate tendencies. I can come up with examples all day where the revoke didn't matter and yet two tricks are transferred. > > An across the board two trick penalty also solves this problem, > >assuming starting at the revoke trick that two tricks have been > >subsequently won by the revoking side. Or, a one-trick penalty + an > >additional trick penalty for every trick established by the revoke and > >currently or subsequently won. After all, you can establish several > >tricks with a revoking holdup in NT contracts and as is L12A1 must come > >into play when that happens. > > No, you don't need L12A1. L64C is fine. A conveniently placed reminder. Same purpose, same power, same result and effect. L64C is redundant except that it happens to be on a page where it matters. > > And while we're on it, 64B6 is stupid. > > > > A > > K > > > >2 3 > >2 3 > > > > K > > A > > > >Whatever is led the other suit is trump. Anyone care for a penalty-free > >revoke on the 12th trick? > > So what? Gains nothing, loses nothing, big deal. Are you saying that the 3 of trump was good for a trick? It gains a trick for the revoking side. As this one is so easily corrected before it's established: A 2 2 3 A K K 3 Play an ace (a trump), partner sluffs the side suit three. Follow up with the two, next player establishes the revoke, win a second trick with the K. I think 64B6 attempted to be a statement of the obvious, but it can do no good. If a revoke on the 12th trick can gain or lose nothing, then 64B6 is entirely without need. -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 Oct 16 05:29:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9FJT5N26757 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 05:29:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from fe040.worldonline.dk (fe040.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.205]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e9FJSwt26753 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 05:28:59 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200010151928.e9FJSwt26753@rgb.anu.edu.au> Received: (qmail 19665 invoked by uid 0); 15 Oct 2000 19:28:47 -0000 Received: from 29.ppp1-15.worldonline.dk (HELO idefix) (212.54.77.29) by fe040.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 15 Oct 2000 19:28:47 -0000 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 21:28:51 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Question (mine is long too) Reply-to: jensogbodil@alesia.dk X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote (10 Oct 00): > From: "Jens & Bodil" > > We try > > to stay abreast of the WBFLC's opinions, but we reserve the right > > not to implement them. That is certainly fully consistent with > > the by-laws of the DBF, and I hope that it is also fully > > acknowledged by the EBL and the WBF. > > Maybe the DBF should write its own set of Laws next time, perhaps > getting together with the ACBL in a splinter organization that > believes that the rules of the game should not have central control. I am all for central control of the rules of the game. I have no wish as such that the DBF should not use the laws as promulgated by the WBF, and I have never met a Danish bridge player who did not readily accept the Laws as the basis of the game. Moreover, I do not desire that the DBF should deviate from a mainstream interpretation of the rules. To the extent that the WBF LC can provide a consistent flow of interpretations intended as authoritative interpretations of the rules, I am happy if the DBF follows them. I am, however, wary of committing myself to implementing such interpretations in the tempo they flow in. The DBF has a tradition of being conservative in introducing new interpretations at the drop of a hat. In the past decade, we have refrained from following at least two trends: - procedural penalties for "convention disruption" - practices that prohibit almost all instances of psyching To illustrate the latter point, we have maintained a box on our convention cards for psyching frequency throughout the past twenty years, even at times when a declaration of "frequent psyching" would not have been accepted in a WBF tournament. Although these two trends were very visible in the WBF, including the latest WBF event in Denmark (1993), we conservatively refrained from introducing them in Denmark. There was some effort made to keep international players aware that different standards were imposed in WBF event. On a similar note, the DBF has for the past 6 or 8 years steered a middle course in the definition of "logical alternative". We have been more restrictive than the traditional "7 out of 10" rule, but we have never implemented the "would seriously consider" rule. Our approach is "more than an insignificant minority would actually choose". By happy coincidence, that seems to be very difficult to distinguish from the approach laid down in the Code of Practice and the minuted comments by the WBF LC. So, when the WBF LC announces an interpretation which is a radical departure from our current practice, we may choose to be slow to follow that interpretation. Rest assured that if the interpretation makes it into a revision of the Laws, we will implement it meticulously. Just to make sure that readers with little knowledge of bridge in Denmark don't get the impression that bridge in Denmark is conducted to a set of rules that differs vastly from the views of the WBF LC, I would like to point out that the only interpretations in the Code of Practice and in the minutes from the WBF LC that I perceive as a potentially contentious with DBF practice is the borderline for when frequent psyching should be treated as a partnership agreement. In Denmark, frequent psyching is not perceived as a problem, and the tradition is somewhat more tolerant of frequent psychers than at least the Code of Practice seems to be. We are debating whether to follow the code of practice here, but we have not done so yet. > This is long enough, but here are some extracts from a message of > Grattan's: > "With grace, the WBFLC has stood aside and > allowed that the matter is not one in which it > should seek to intervene. It has expressed a > willingness to think about the Law when it > embarks on a major review of the laws. In the > interim, with authority of the Executive, the > manner of adoption of the procedure in > Bermuda is opened up for any who wish to > follow. The European Bridge League has > already reacted positively. The DBF has also reacted positively. We allow our TDs at the national level to exercise the powers otherwise given to appeals committees in L12C3. We are conducting this as an experiment and require feedback on all rulings made under this experiment. We will revisit the issue whether to allow all directors in all tournaments this power when we see how things work out. In summary, it does not really surprise me that the members of the WBF LC (and Marv) disagree with me. I see a division of power between the WBF LC and the National Authorities. In essence, the WBF LC is the ultimate legislative power - who may delegate some of their powers to those who write regulations. I see the National Authority as the ultimate judiciary power, who only rule on a very small fractions of cases that hinge on a point of law, but whose rulings affect The real difference of opinion is probably whether comments on interpretation from the WBF LC have the same legislative authority as the laws themselves. The WBF LC presents formal arguments that they do; I think I have pragmatic arguments that they should not. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://www.alesia.dk/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Oct 16 06:35:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9FKYK026816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 06:34:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9FKYCt26812 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 06:34:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from eduhi.at (petrus2.konvent [192.168.1.116]) by michael.gym (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA23924 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 22:31:51 -0400 Message-ID: <39EA150E.27962610@eduhi.at> Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 22:35:26 +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] Scoring Question (mine is long too) References: <200010151928.e9FJSwt26753@rgb.anu.edu.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jens & Bodil schrieb: > > I am all for central control of the rules of the game. I have no > wish as such that the DBF should not use the laws as promulgated by > the WBF, and I have never met a Danish bridge player who did not > readily accept the Laws as the basis of the game. > > Moreover, I do not desire that the DBF should deviate from a > mainstream interpretation of the rules. To the extent that the WBF > LC can provide a consistent flow of interpretations intended as > authoritative interpretations of the rules, I am happy if the > DBF follows them. > > I am, however, wary of committing myself to implementing such > interpretations in the tempo they flow in. > > The DBF has a tradition of being conservative in introducing > new interpretations at the drop of a hat. In the past decade, we > have refrained from following at least two trends: > > - procedural penalties for "convention disruption" > - practices that prohibit almost all instances of psyching > > To illustrate the latter point, we have maintained a box on our > convention cards for psyching frequency throughout the past twenty > years, even at times when a declaration of "frequent psyching" would > not have been accepted in a WBF tournament. > > Although these two trends were very visible in the WBF, including > the latest WBF event in Denmark (1993), we conservatively refrained > from introducing them in Denmark. There was some effort made to keep > international players aware that different standards were imposed in > WBF event. > > On a similar note, the DBF has for the past 6 or 8 years steered a > middle course in the definition of "logical alternative". We have > been more restrictive than the traditional "7 out of 10" rule, but we > have never implemented the "would seriously consider" rule. Our > approach is "more than an insignificant minority would actually > choose". By happy coincidence, that seems to be very difficult to > distinguish from the approach laid down in the Code of Practice and > the minuted comments by the WBF LC. > > So, when the WBF LC announces an interpretation which is a radical > departure from our current practice, we may choose to be slow to > follow that interpretation. Rest assured that if the interpretation > makes it into a revision of the Laws, we will implement it > meticulously. > > Just to make sure that readers with little knowledge of bridge in > Denmark don't get the impression that bridge in Denmark is conducted > to a set of rules that differs vastly from the views of the WBF LC, > I would like to point out that the only interpretations in the Code > of Practice and in the minutes from the WBF LC that I perceive as a > potentially contentious with DBF practice is the borderline for when > frequent psyching should be treated as a partnership agreement. > > In Denmark, frequent psyching is not perceived as a problem, and the > tradition is somewhat more tolerant of frequent psychers than at > least the Code of Practice seems to be. We are debating whether to > follow the code of practice here, but we have not done so yet. > > In summary, it does not really surprise me that the members of the > WBF LC (and Marv) disagree with me. I see a division of power > between the WBF LC and the National Authorities. In essence, the > WBF LC is the ultimate legislative power - who may delegate some of > their powers to those who write regulations. I see the National > Authority as the ultimate judiciary power, who only rule on a very > small fractions of cases that hinge on a point of law, but whose > rulings affect > > The real difference of opinion is probably whether comments on > interpretation from the WBF LC have the same legislative authority as > the laws themselves. The WBF LC presents formal arguments that they > do; I think I have pragmatic arguments that they should not. All this is surprisingly similar to the situation in Austria, and for much the same reasons. There is one I may wish to add: It is difficult enough to convince clubs that they should have a qualified TD. Club directors tend to acquire a working knowledge of the Laws when they take their exam, and that is it for most of them. When new Laws are promulgated, the clubs get a copy, and many a TD will learn the Laws when he sets about to apply them (fortunately, few endeavour to give their rulings without the book). I do not see a feasible way to get the club TDs to apply new interpretations every so often, and then we will lose consistency in the rulings players get at their club and at major tournaments. Besides, many players tend to give you a strange look when you tell them every 6 months that the Laws have changed (really - many of the older ones are still annoyed when you don't let them inspect the trick after they have turned their card, an we have had that change back in 1975) And IMHO, consistency is far more important to keep players happy than equity or international uniformity. 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 Mon Oct 16 07:55:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9FLsuY26884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 07:54:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9FLsot26880 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 07:54:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13kvjw-000NH0-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 21:54:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 21:05:39 +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: <200010131818.OAA05355@cfa183.harvard.edu> <003101c03679$e08f3c00$c55608c3@dodona> <8yRetrAxJc65Ewoy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <8yRetrAxJc65Ewoy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >Grattan Endicott wrote: >>From: David Stevenson > >>> http://blakjak.com/wbf_lcmn.htm >>> >>> *But* I do not have Bermuda yet. Actually, now I am doing it >>properly >>> in downloadabale files, what about Lille? OK. The cited page has downloadable Zip files for all Maastricht and Bermuda Minutes and additional Schedules. Unfortunately I do not have a self-extracting Zip facility. Lille? -- 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 Oct 16 09:07:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9FN6ai27006 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 09:06:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from acsys.anu.edu.au (acsys [150.203.20.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9FN6Vt27002 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 09:06:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from accordion (accordion.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.58]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA26367 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 09:06:30 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.20001016100637.01164ec0@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 10:06:38 +1100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (by way of Markus Buchhorn ) Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [Yet another majordomo over-policed message -markus] >From: "Todd Zimnoch" Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:48:41 PDT >From: "Michael S. Dennis" >Your contrary position, shared by Ton, Adam(s), Grattan (I think), and >Steve, is that the language of the phrase in question either clearly does, >or at any rate ought to, refer to tricks yet unplayed. Left unanswered by >most of you is the question raised by this interpretation: by what legal >standard are we to judge whether an unplayed card has actually won an >unplayed trick? I do not regard the problem as unsolvable, except within >the constraints of the Laws in their present form. Certainly it should be >possible to formulate and codify a solution. If I have been unhelpful in >that effort, it is because I really don't see the need. One possibility: 1) Upon claiming, a revoke that occurred on any quitted trick is considered established. 2) If there exists any normal line of play which results in the same number of tricks to claimer that allows the revoker to win a trick with a card that could legally have been played on the revoke trick, ... Note: I leave room for the normal line of play to go against the claim statement. Another possibility (I'd prefer): Revert to a two-trick penalty for a revoke with no ifs, ands, or buts. Yet another possibility (not very serious): This is a situation whose clarity would benefit from a playout. Michael's possibility: You give up the possibility of a two-trick revoke penalty when you claim. >To recap: I have offered a straightforward solution to an actual problem >presented to the group, and a consistent and simple approach to dealing >with such problems in the future. The Leading Lights, on the other hand, >have provided numerous interesting hypothetical cases in support of an >approach that leaves unanswered the question of how to deal with the actual >problem raised. And I'm the one who is too "academic"? I think they're ridiculing you since while you have a solution, it is a far cry from achieving 'equity.' Personally I prefer the wholely objective and not even draconian two-trick revoke penalties. But I also prefer your solution to theirs on the basis that it is at least objective. -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 Oct 16 10:03:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9G03C527061 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 10:03:12 +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 e9G035t27057 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 10:03:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.119] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13kxk4-000NoL-00; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 01:03:00 +0100 Message-ID: <000f01c03704$aa6ad9a0$775408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Hirsch Davis" , "blml" References: <3.0.1.32.20001012213022.01213010@pop.mindspring.com><67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6B7@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl><3.0.1.32.20001012213022.01213010@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001013163228.012260d8@pop.mindspring.com> <002201c035ae$03140840$095908c3@dodona> <001501c0367b$0fac47c0$0200000a@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 01:03:43 +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 "A public-opinion poll is no substitute for thought." - Warren Buffett ----- Original Message ----- From: Hirsch Davis To: blml Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2000 8:39 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke > > | > > | +=+ By the adjudication of the Director/AC and > > | the basis upon which it is made, perhaps? Have > > | these not judged what tricks are won and how? > > | ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > A regulation that adjudicates that upon a claim > > by a non revoker that for an unstated line the cards > > are 'played' in the less advantageous order [with > > regards to L64] for the revoking side is a violation > > of L80F. This is because L70 specifies that > > doubtful points are ruled unfavorably to claimer. > > > > Roger Pewick > > Houston, Texas > > +=+ I would want to think about the timing of the sequence of the Director's actions. My mind is questioning whether it is such that the revoke is dealt with in accordance with the guidance given, so that nothing remains in doubt in that connection. ~ 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 Oct 16 11:38:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9G1bV327123 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 11:37:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9G1bPt27119 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 11:37:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivet39.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.116.105]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA28120 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 21:26:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001015212428.0122c134@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 21:24:28 -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: <3.0.32.20001016100637.01164ec0@acsys.anu.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:06 AM 10/16/2000 +1100, Todd wrote: > I think they're ridiculing you since while you have a solution, it >is a far cry from achieving 'equity.' You've put 'equity' in quotes, so perhaps you mean something other than the usual usage, which refers to the reasonable expectation of the NOS absent the irregularity. Of course the equity of the NOS is guaranteed under L64C, and nothing in my argument suggests that should be overridden. But I think you are right that the opposition is based on a fundamental sense that my approach is unjust, in that it deprives the NOS of something to which they are 'entitled'. My first answer is that the NOS are only entitled to the protections of the Laws as they are written, and that any protection beyond that is truly inequitable. There is also a misconception, furthered by David Stevenson's misleading comments, that L64 generally entitles the NOS to "equity plus one", i.e., a restoration of pre-irregularity equity plus a penalty trick. While this may be approximately true in a statistical sense, even a cursory glance at L64 (especially 64B and 64C) will demonstrate its fundamental falsity for any particular hand. Many revoke penalties only return the NOS equity, with no bonus tricks, and the effect of the revoke penalty in other cases is actually a two-trick bonus above equity. So any argument that appeals to some intrinsic fairness in these Laws is illusory. Upon reflection, I think that what most find so unappetizing about my position is that it violates a general sense that claims and concessions should confer no advantage upon either side. While no such principle is explicitly stated in the Laws on Claims and Concessions, it may be reasonably inferred from the policies and procedures specified therein. OK, but the fact is that in the case originally presented, _somebody_ is going to be disadvantaged by the effect of the concession, whichever way we decide to read L64A2. If my interpretation prevails (damned unlikely), then declarer has been deprived of the opportunity for a two-trick penalty that might have resulted from playing the hand out. If the opposing view prevails, then the defenders are deprived of the legitimate chance at a mere one-trick penalty that could have been the actual outcome. And to those who say "tough noogies" to the revoking side, I would say that nothing in the Laws on revokes, and indeed no general legal principle, pre-supposes a bias against the offending side. Yes, the "usual principle" of resolving doubtful points in favor of the NOS is stated in several specific contexts, but not, AFAIK, as an overarching legal tenet. So we are left with a problem: if a straightforward reading of L64A2 seems at odds with an implicit principle concerning the treatment of claims and concessions, should we adopt an ad hoc approach to ruling on these cases, or are we better off simply applying the Laws as written, even when the result "feels" unjust? I regret that my advocacy of the latter approach has provoked such hard feelings, and appreciate the sympathetic comments from Todd and David B. 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 Oct 16 11:57:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9G1vcL27140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 11:57:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9G1vWt27136 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 11:57:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.16.27]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20001016015715.HCCF13676.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 02:57:15 +0100 Message-ID: <001101c03714$c177c760$1b10ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne.jones1" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Teams of Four. Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 02:59:43 +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 It is a one session multiple teams event of seven teams. It is a qualifier for a final to be played at a later date. There will be six rounds each of 4 boards > One team is a team of 5, and all others are teams of 4. All members of all teams are declared before the event. > The team that has 5 members wishes to field all 5 during the qualifier. It is anticipated that the 5th member will replace one of the others at some point during the evening. Player 5 will not be present until such time as he replaces another, and this is to be done between rounds. Player 5 tells you - the TD- at the beginning of the event that this is planned. > You have to guide you the Law book, and a set of regulations, the pertinent ones being as follows.:- White Book 80.23 Additional Players in Teams Events. Any specific tournament regulations take precedence over the following. In Teams of four events each team is entitled to have up to six members. If only four or five are registered at the time of the original entry, additional members may be registered later before the commencement of play subject to the approval of the sponsoring organisation. After play has begun, additional players may still be registered up to the half way stage of the competition subject to the approval of the sponsoring organisation and provided that they have not previously been registered in another team which has participated in the competition. In addition to the above the TD may authorise one substitute player for up to four boards provided that : the TD considers the reason to be valid; the substitution is not substantially detrimental to the other contestants. the substitute has not previously been registered in the competition other than as a substitute in another team. The TD may make emergency substitutions when necessary to facilitate the smooth running of the event, subject to the substitution not being substantially detrimental to the other contestants. A team disqualified through this subsection should be notified at the earliest opportunity. A player may also apply in advance to the sponsoring organisation for such permission,or for special consideration. > When player 5 returns to the playing area, and requests permission to sit, a member of another team objects. Player 5 is the strongest player of his team, and is stronger than any other player in the field. > How do you rule:- If a) there are still 3 rounds to play? b) if there is just one round left to play? > 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 Mon Oct 16 14:14:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9G4Dh327245 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 14:13:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9G4Dbt27241 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 14:13:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-001kslawrP055.dialsprint.net [158.252.181.39]) by harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3-EL_1_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA04483 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 21:13:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <200010152312580310.029799AF@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <001101c03714$c177c760$1b10ff3e@vnmvhhid> References: <001101c03714$c177c760$1b10ff3e@vnmvhhid> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.10.03.02 (3) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 23:12:58 -0500 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >One team is a team of 5, and all others are teams of 4. All members of all >teams are declared before the event. OK. >The team that has 5 members wishes to field all 5 during the qualifier. It >is anticipated that the 5th member will replace one of the others at some >point during the evening. Player 5 will not be present until such time as he >replaces another, and this is to be done between rounds. Player 5 tells >you - the TD- at the beginning of the event that this is planned. So far so good. >White Book 80.23 >Additional Players in Teams Events. >... If only four or five are registered at the time of the original entry, >additional members may be registered later before the commencement of play >subject to the approval of the sponsoring organisation. Doesn't apply as all players were declared in advance. >After play has begun, additional players may still be registered up to the >half way stage of the competition subject to the approval of the sponsoring >organisation and provided that they have not previously been registered in >another team which has participated in the competition. Also doesn't apply. >In addition to the above the TD may authorise one substitute player for up >to four boards provided that : > > the TD considers the reason to be valid; > the substitution is not substantially detrimental to > the other contestants. > the substitute has not previously been registered in the > competition other than as a substitute in another team. Also doesn't apply. >The TD may make emergency substitutions when necessary to facilitate the >smooth running of the event, subject to the substitution not being >substantially detrimental to the other contestants. A team disqualified >through this subsection should be notified at the earliest opportunity. Also doesn't apply. >When player 5 returns to the playing area, and requests permission to sit, a >member of another team objects. >Player 5 is the strongest player of his team, and is stronger than any other >player in the field. >> >How do you rule:- >If a) there are still 3 rounds to play? >b) if there is just one round left to play? In both cases, with the facts as given, I rule that player 5 can sit down and play since he's a member of the team and has complied with all regulations. I'd take care, of course, that (in the case of a round-robin still in progress) no other players on that team switch seats. Best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading "You tell the candidate you're going to vote for to come to my face and say my vote is a wasted vote. I don't think anyone who would say that should be in charge." -- Bill Murray -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Oct 16 18:08:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9G87eV27409 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 18:07:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9G87Xt27405 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 18:07:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.179] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13l5Iv-0002N4-00; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 09:07:30 +0100 Message-ID: <001101c03748$59cdb3c0$b35908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "anne.jones1" , "BLML" References: <001101c03714$c177c760$1b10ff3e@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 09:07:19 +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 "A public-opinion poll is no substitute for thought." - Warren Buffett > > When player 5 returns to the playing area, and > requests permission to sit, a member of another > team objects. > Player 5 is the strongest player of his team, > and is stronger than any other player in the field. > > How do you rule:- > If a) there are still 3 rounds to play? > b) if there is just one round left to play? > > > Anne > +=+ Why are we told what number of rounds is left to play? Why is a judgemental comment about the strength of the player included? It is unlikely that either of these factors is present in anything that governs the matter. Certainly not the second one. Apply Law 4. It is a fairly common failing that, if at all, Directors and others do not begin to read the laws until about law 6, or even later than that. The Director will allow a substitution if the regulations positively authorize it (or in an emergency). ~ 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 Oct 16 18:28:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9G8SDN27433 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 18:28:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9G8S5t27429 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 18:28:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id KAA32542 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 10:27:45 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Oct 16 10:20:36 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 <01JVEGPUNS6G000T3K@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 10:18:37 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <45AZ8Q83>; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 10:15:20 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 10:18:27 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: [BLML] sympathy (was concession) To: "'Michael S. Dennis'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6C2@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 So we are left with a problem: if a straightforward reading > of L64A2 seems > at odds with an implicit principle concerning the treatment > of claims and > concessions, should we adopt an ad hoc approach to ruling on > these cases, > or are we better off simply applying the Laws as written, > even when the > result "feels" unjust? I regret that my advocacy of the > latter approach has > provoked such hard feelings, and appreciate the sympathetic > comments from > Todd and David B. > > Mike Dennis > -- How can you expect a sympathetic comment from me when you suggest not to apply the laws? And don't believe that David B. was joining you (he is much too quiet). He is not the one advocating not to follow the laws, but saying that it is impossible to follow them. Now a to be considered constructive contribution. Not knowing what would have happened if play had continued why do we not apply 12c3 now it is available for TD's? To make it more complicated (so constructiveness has left me again), what if revoker tells you that he knew he revoked (and the laws) and would have played avoiding to win THE trick? This 12c3 combined with a revoke reminds me of the examination in the EBL-TD course in 1981 (or '82?), where I was a student (and (if I remember well) Max Bavin was, and Claude Dadoun, and Tommy Sandsmark, among 60 others). KQJT - - - 8 A9 3 2 - - 4 2 5 4 A A A South declarer in NT, on lead in dummy claims the last three tricks, showing his hand. East concedes and puts his hand down. West studies for a while and calls the director, not agreeing with the claim. South could not know the positions of the remaining cards. What decision should the director take? The Dutch participants could have known this problem since it had appeared in Dutch courses before (and once having seen it you don't forget it, how else could I type it down here?). So confidently I marked 1 trick to NS as the decision (multiple choice with the answers 3, 2, 1, 0 tricks). You think it to be an advantage to know the questions? Not in bridge since our examination committee had its own ideas about the right answers, as we still have (they were Harold Franklin and Jimmy Ortiz Patino). You saw the problem? East, demanded so by west, is allowed to play the spade 9 and to take the next trick. Now south is squeezed and according to the laws is supposed to play the wrong aces loosing them all. That is what we thought. The answer appeared to be that south could have played the heart ace first, making 3 tricks, a minor ace and then the heart ace, making 2 tricks or both minor aces first, making only one trick. They considered all of them as equal possibilities (which is not true with only one diamond left) and decided for the average being 2 tricks. Really inventive. Most of us were furious. I assume some of you to be proud of this solution. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 16 18:58:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9G8wBN27458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 18:58:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9G8w5t27454 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 18:58:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.5.247]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20001016085802.KIDG19246.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 09:58:02 +0100 Message-ID: <003c01c0374f$8c5fb340$f705ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne.jones1" To: "BLML" References: <001101c03714$c177c760$1b10ff3e@vnmvhhid> <001101c03748$59cdb3c0$b35908c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 10:00:35 +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: "Grattan Endicott" To: "anne.jones1" ; "BLML" Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 9:07 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. > > Grattan Endicott > "A public-opinion poll is no substitute for thought." > - Warren Buffett > > > > > > When player 5 returns to the playing area, and > > requests permission to sit, a member of another > > team objects. > > Player 5 is the strongest player of his team, > > and is stronger than any other player in the field. > > > > How do you rule:- > > If a) there are still 3 rounds to play? > > b) if there is just one round left to play? > > > > > Anne > > > +=+ Why are we told what number of rounds > is left to play? > The thought arose that Law 4 allows for this to happen during a session, only if the TD was prepared to allow it. Do the players have a right to demand it? > > Why is a judgemental comment about > the strength of the player included? > If Law 4 prohibits the fielding of the fifth member of a team by right during a session, then does the introduction of the fifth player amount to a substition whic, we are told, is for a maximum of 4 boards.This substitution may not be detrimental to other players. A 5th member who is stronger is merely good fortune for the teams. It appears that a substitute that is stronger by far, may not be used? > > It is unlikely that either of these factors > is present in anything that governs the > matter. Certainly not the second one. > I thought it did. > > Apply Law 4. It is a fairly common > failing that, if at all, Directors and others do > not begin to read the laws until about law 6, > or even later than that. The Director will > allow a substitution if the regulations > positively authorize it (or in an emergency). > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ It seems to me that the problem in interpretation arises when you look at the definition of session as used in Law 4, and of the definition of substitute as used in Law 4, and the regulations. Contention was that 5th player is not a substitute:-) thanks 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 Mon Oct 16 23:37:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9GDZw527709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 23:35:58 +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 e9GDZnt27705 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 23:35:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.0.ap (resu)) id PAA25738; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 15:33:21 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id PAA28153; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 15:35:23 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001016154550.008bcde0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 15:45:50 +0200 To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Steve Willner" , "David Stevenson" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: couple laws questions Cc: "Bill Schoder" , "Antonio Riccardi" , "'Grattan Endicott'" , "Richard Grenside" , "Max Bavin" , "bridge-laws" In-Reply-To: <003c01c0352a$35930520$e85293c3@pacific> References: <39C08689.731E@dksin.dk> <20000914044706.27000.00000558@ng-cm1.aol.com> <8pqdiv$7dk$1@netox20.alcatel.no> <39e203be.0@cfanews.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 16:21 13/10/00 +0100, Grattan Endicott wrote: >> >> Dummy can *attempt* to prevent an infraction *by declarer*. [Law 42B2] >> >> Once the infraction has occurred, though, he may not draw attention to >> >> it until after play is concluded. [Law 42B3, reiterated in Law 43A1(b)] >> > >> >All true, although I'll quibble about 'reiterated'. (The latter two >> >laws are complementary, not redundant.) >> > >> >> So once declarer places his played card face down, if it's facing the >> >> wrong way, the infraction has occurred, and dummy should keep his mouth >> >> shut. >> > >> >In this specific case, the ACBL has decided that the irregularity >> >hasn't occurred until declarer plays to the next trick (either from >> >his own hand or dummy). AG : this is quite coherent with the letter of the law : the infraction of revoking is not established before the next trick has begun. So, dummy's question comes indeed defore the infraction has occurred. And, since there is no penalty for exposing a card as declarer, exposing a card is not an infraction ; indeed, at the time the question was asked, no infraction at all has occurred. 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 Oct 17 00:47:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9GEl6J27786 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:47:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-d07.mx.aol.com (imo-d07.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9GEkxt27782 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:47:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.31.) id w.9c.82836a4 (17228); Mon, 16 Oct 2000 10:44:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <9c.82836a4.271c6e34@aol.com> Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 10:44:04 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: couple laws questions To: agot@ulb.ac.be, gester@globalnet.co.uk, willner@cfa183.harvard.edu, bnewsr@blakjak.com CC: riccardi.antonio@libero.it, Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk, rgrenside@ozemail.com.au, max@ebu.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: Windows AOL sub 124 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In a message dated 10/16/00 9:37:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time, agot@ulb.ac.be writes: > AG : this is quite coherent with the letter of the law : the infraction of > revoking is not established before the next trick has begun. So, dummy's > question comes indeed defore the infraction has occurred. > And, since there is no penalty for exposing a card as declarer, exposing a > card is not an infraction ; indeed, at the time the question was asked, no > infraction at all has occurred. > > A. To which I can only conjure up one word -- "irrelevant." $$$ Kojak $$$ -- ======================================================================== (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 Oct 17 01:41:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9GFesS27846 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 01:40:55 +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 e9GFemt27842 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 01:40:49 +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 IAA09786; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 08:40:44 -0700 Message-Id: <200010161540.IAA09786@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 "Sun, 15 Oct 2000 01:20:58 PDT." Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 08:40:44 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: > IMO the TD plays the cards in order to adjudicate the claim and assesses > which tricks are won by which side. These cards are played by the TD > acting as agent for the players making and contesting the claim. > Otherwise the TD is unable to adjudicate. Having performed this exercise > (maybe more than once) he will adjudicate the claim as required by the > Laws. I see *no* problem with this and find that Mike is asking the > question "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin" 7,265,319,332. Unlike the revoke-and-claim issue currently under discussion, I thought the answer to this last question was settled. -- 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 Oct 17 02:08:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9GG8B127879 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 02:08:11 +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 e9GG82t27875 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 02:08:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id MAA26783 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 12:07:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA10312 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 12:07:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 12:07:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200010161607.MAA10312@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Brian Baresch" > In both cases, with the facts as given, I rule that player 5 can sit down > and play since he's a member of the team and has complied with all > regulations. Seems right to me too, _unless_ there are a couple of regulations along the lines of: 1. You must play 50% of the boards to qualify for the next round. 2. You may not continue to play if you cannot qualify to play in the next round. These regulations are not universal, but they are fairly common. If they are in effect, the fifth player may enter after round 3 but not after round 5. In either case, I don't see that the wishes of opposing teams are relevant. > I'd take care, of course, that (in the case of a round-robin > still in progress) no other players on that team switch seats. Grattan pointed out that this is contained in L4. I had never noticed it before. So maneuvers such as A+B, C+D --> A+C, D+E are illegal unless specifically permitted by the CoC. One way to allow partnership changes, as seems desirable for teams of 5 or 6 players, is to specify that each round is a session. (The ACBL does this for Swiss Teams events.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 17 02:12:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9GGClj27899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 02:12:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9GGCft27895 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 02:12:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id MAA27029 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 12:12:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA10321 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 12:12:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 12:12:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200010161612.MAA10321@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au 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 > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > Upon reflection, I think that what most find so unappetizing about my > position is that it violates a general sense that claims and concessions > should confer no advantage upon either side. While no such principle is > explicitly stated in the Laws on Claims and Concessions, it may be > reasonably inferred from the policies and procedures specified therein. L70A seems to state the principle pretty explicitly. The other thing, as David S. says, is that most of us believe every deal contains 13 tricks, whether there is a claim or not. I agree, of course, that the next edition of the Laws ought to have some explicit principles to deal with the interaction of claims with other irregularities. The problem is not only revokes. We could probably have a 300-message thread on "claims after MI" if we were so inclined. (No, I won't start one!) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 17 02:35:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9GGZd727920 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 02:35:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9GGZXt27916 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 02:35:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-002kslawrP284.dialsprint.net [158.252.182.86]) by avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA15059 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 09:35:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <200010161135100030.0046C35F@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <200010161607.MAA10312@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200010161607.MAA10312@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.10.03.02 (3) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 11:35:10 -0500 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >> I'd take care, of course, that (in the case of a round-robin >> still in progress) no other players on that team switch seats. > >Grattan pointed out that this is contained in L4. I had never noticed >it before. So maneuvers such as > A+B, C+D --> A+C, D+E >are illegal unless specifically permitted by the CoC. One way to allow >partnership changes, as seems desirable for teams of 5 or 6 players, is >to specify that each round is a session. (The ACBL does this for Swiss >Teams events.) Hmm; I hadn't noticed it before either. Our team of 5 in this year's GNT, then, was breaking the law because we did just the switch you outlined above at halftime of each match. The directors were aware of it, though, and never said anything. Best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading "You tell the candidate you're going to vote for to come to my face and say my vote is a wasted vote. I don't think anyone who would say that should be in charge." -- Bill Murray -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 17 03:31:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9GHUcu28002 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 03:30:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9GHUTt27998 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 03:30:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ta184047 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 03:19:44 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-012-p-227-254.tmns.net.au ([203.54.227.254]) by mail5.bigpond.com (Claudes-Melodramatic-MailRouter V2.9c 9/6418555); 17 Oct 2000 03:19:43 Message-ID: <045101c0379d$a3f4daa0$1ce036cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Convention Cards [was: Ruling in Antwerp] Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 04:19:35 +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 Peter Gill wrote: >>The WBF CC is the largest of all and is a special case - it >> is filled in before the event, but tends to be shunted aside >> during the game, being too bulky to fit on the table. >> Grattan Endicott replied: >+=+ I am quite surprised you say this. My observation >has been that in international championships the CCs >are presented to opponents and almost invariably >kept either propped up against the screen or handily >to one side - and referred to quite a lot. +=+ I based my statement on my experience playing in Lille in all stages of the Mixed Pairs and Open Pairs in 1998. i should have stated that my suggestion about a small CC was intended for Pairs usage. I could be wrong, especially at Teams where detail is no doubt appreciated. >> - administrators can more easily check CCs for BSCs etc. >> >+=+ I resist the suggestion that this be an administrator's > task. +=+ At Lille the CC checking process was closed down because (I was told) it was an administrative nightmare. We played against two pairs playing BSCs I think, so the system there was probably imperfect. Leading up to Maastricht, Anna Gudge seemed to have a lot of administrative work to do regarding systemic changes (judging as one of a member of the pre-Maastricht online "WBF Systems List"). Her future administrative load could perhaps be reduced, if the main CC could be changed on arrival but the small CC (basic details, BSCs and other vital details) could not. Part of the purpose of my posts in this thread is that it would be a pity if the System Checking process collapses in Montreal in 2002 just as it did in Lille. >> - at WBF events, "finding out what the opponents' cardplay >> signals are" would become much easier than it currently is. >> >+=+ Minimally so where alternative meanings are > conditioned by partnership experience. But > the general direction of your comments > is useful and offers scope for further thought. Pre-Maastricht I was asked to summarise about 50 CCs for the Australian teams. Many of my summaries point out that it impossible to work out which of two (sometimes three) card play methods a pair is playing. The Leads Table frequently does not match the Leads grid etc etc etc etc. I could give details if you want, but it would be a very long post of inconsistencies which make it impossible to determine exactly what many pairs' card play arrangements actually are. Most of the problem is the layout of the cardplay section. My point is that some sort of updating of the 16+ year old WBF CC and the 18 year old ACBL CC seems to be overdue. 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 Tue Oct 17 04:07:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9GI5Nb28034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 04:05:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9GI5Ht28030 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 04:05:18 +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 OAA15180; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 14:05:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA173379511; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 14:05:11 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 14:05:10 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: RE: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke 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 > Laws. I see *no* problem with this and find that Mike is asking the > question "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin" 7,265,319,332. Unlike the revoke-and-claim issue currently under discussion, I thought the answer to this last question was settled. Depends of sex of these angels... males need more place to dance... Laval -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 17 04:25:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9GIOIJ28056 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 04:24:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9GIOCt28052 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 04:24:12 +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 OAA03105 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 14:24:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA10416 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 14:24:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 14:24:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200010161824.OAA10416@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Brian Baresch" > Hmm; I hadn't noticed it before either. Our team of 5 in this year's GNT, > then, was breaking the law because we did just the switch you outlined > above at halftime of each match. The directors were aware of it, though, > and never said anything. If you scored up at halftime, it was probably legal. In general, the ACBL considers half-matches (or quarters in full-day matches) to be separate sessions. You can change partnerships, systems, etc. without limitation. The same is true between matches in Swiss Teams events. Every match is a separate session. I don't know where the exact of the regulations is found. It may be in the Tech Files distributed with ACBLscore. As Brian says, though, in jurisdictions without specific regulations, such switches would be illegal. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 17 04:26:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9GIPTd28062 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 04:25:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9GIPNt28058 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 04:25:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp182-107.worldonline.nl [195.241.182.107]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id B9F2736C9E; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 20:24:59 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <006101c0379d$b8776740$6bb6f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "David J Grabiner" , Subject: Re: [BLML] Comment on Maastricht minuted Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 19:56:18 +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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >What is the meaning of this interpretation? > >>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. > >I would interpret this as saying that a ruling of "+120 or >average-plus, whichever is better" is not allowed if the +120 is not a >bridge result, but if +120 was obtained at the table and the TD >believes that average-plus is a correct adjusted score for the >irregularity (which many TD's believe is allowed), then L12A comes into >play automatically, as the Laws provide insufficient indemnity if E-W's >infraction caused N-S to get a 60% score when they already had 80% >without it. I am not sure that I understand what you are saying. If a pair got a 80% score on a board and you want to suggest them to receive at most 60 because of an irregularity by its opponents you better keep your mouth shut, or slightly better: tell them that they are not damaged by this irregularity. And if you have to give them average-plus because you are obliged to apply L12C1 there is no choice. If you do not understand my reaction we are in trouble and in that case I would like to ask you to give an example. The subject seems important to me. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 17 04:41:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9GIdF728084 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 04:39:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9GId9t28080 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 04:39:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9GBlDi04645; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 11:47:13 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: David Stevenson , David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Comment on Maastricht minuted Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 11:26:46 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <00101413132302.03328@psa836> <8KyRSeAcRR65Ew6s@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <8KyRSeAcRR65Ew6s@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00101611471301.04596@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sun, 15 Oct 2000, David Stevenson wrote: > David J Grabiner wrote: > >What is the meaning of this interpretation? > > > >>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. > > > >I would interpret this as saying that a ruling of "+120 or > >average-plus, whichever is better" is not allowed if the +120 is not a > >bridge result, but if +120 was obtained at the table and the TD > >believes that average-plus is a correct adjusted score for the > >irregularity (which many TD's believe is allowed), then L12A comes into > >play automatically, as the Laws provide insufficient indemnity if E-W's > >infraction caused N-S to get a 60% score when they already had 80% > >without it. > Or to put it another way, David, despite reading this thrice, I have > no clue what you are saying, so perhaps you could run it past me again? This is because I couldn't understand what the committee was trying to say. How is it possible for a non-offending side to be disadvantaged by a score of average-plus when L12C1 applies (no bridge result can be obtained)? This seems to be the case the committee is addressing. It appears the committee is ruling that, if no bridge result can be obtained, a ruling of "Average-plus to N-S, or the +120 we think they were likely to get if that is better than average-plus," is not allowed; has anyone ever tried to make such a ruling? (If the +120 was obtained at the table, then it is a bridge result and L12C1 should not apply). I can now think of a case in which the other Laws might come into play. In a Swiss match scored at won/loss, one team went for -1100 and then fouled the board. The non-offenders were down by 6 IMPs without the fouled board. Under a strict reading of L12C1, both sides lose the match; the non-offenders get +3 on the fouled board, and the offenders get -3 and a penalty of at least -6 for fouling the board. Equity dictates that the non-offenders win the match here, because they would probably have won without the opponents' infraction. If this is what the Laws Committee meant, it should have been made more clear. -- 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 Tue Oct 17 05:12:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9GJC9j28119 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 05:12:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9GJC3t28115 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 05:12:04 +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 PAA06769 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 15:12:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA10544 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 15:12:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 15:12:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200010161912.PAA10544@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Comment on Maastricht minuted X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David J Grabiner > I can now think of a case in which the other Laws might come into play. > In a Swiss match scored at won/loss, one team went for -1100 and then > fouled the board. The non-offenders were down by 6 IMPs without the > fouled board. Under a strict reading of L12C1, both sides lose the > match; the non-offenders get +3 on the fouled board, and the offenders > get -3 and a penalty of at least -6 for fouling the board. Equity > dictates that the non-offenders win the match here, because they would > probably have won without the opponents' infraction. The above is really two separate problems (at least). Suppose first that the board is fouled at the table where the -1100 is scored. In fact, we had exactly this case a couple of months ago, where the side with the rotten score switched the EW curtain cards. I _think_ the consensus was that L72B1 applied, although it wasn't unanimous. L72B1 allows an _assigned_ adjusted score, which can restore equity. Suppose instead that the board is successfully transferred to the other table, but then (say) North grabs a hand out of a wrong board, making this board unplayable. (Two cases here; it might have been either EW or NS at the other table who were -1100.) Or maybe the caddy drops the board and mixes up the cards. (Third case.) Is the side that scored +1100 just out of luck? I think they are, in all three cases, but I'd like to be told otherwise. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 17 06:00:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9GJx6J28151 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 05:59:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9GJwxt28147 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 05:59:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d222.iae.nl [212.61.3.222]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 3A44120F19 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 21:58:52 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <006d01c037ab$c664bd40$de033dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] Obligation to double after partners psychic bid? Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 21:59:35 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0066_01C037BC.5F1A1CA0" 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_0066_01C037BC.5F1A1CA0 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 2H pass 4H ? Established facts: CC EW: third hand bid can be light ( not more than that), BSC and HUM are not permitted (Law 40D), East explained to the TD summoned that he intentionally has given a = psychic bid, It is known that East has a certain style and has lately done the same = with 5 points. Question: Is west OBLIGED to double 4H taking into account that west did not show = values in the second round of the auction? Reason why: In 1981 members of the International Bridge Press Association were asked = what they would call with a given hand in a given auction. Herman = Filarski answered: "I MUST double in the case that my partner has given = a psychic bid. Herman had a correct feeling because "his partner " had = given a psychic bid. In the Code of Practice is written under Disclosure of psychic = tendencies: A partnership may not defend itself against an allegation that its = psychic action is based upon an understanding by claiming that, although = the partner had an awareness of the possibility of a psychic in the = given situation, the partner's actions subsequent to the psychic have = been entirely normal. The opponents are entitled to an equal and timely = awareness of any agreement, explicit or implicit, since it may affect = their choice of action and for this reason the understanding must be = disclosed. Awaiting your reactions, Ben ------=_NextPart_000_0066_01C037BC.5F1A1CA0 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            = ; X

pass    =20 2H            = ;  =20 pass         4H

  ?

 

Established facts:

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

BSC and HUM are not permitted (Law 40D),

East explained to the TD summoned that he intentionally has given a = psychic=20 bid,

It is known that East has a certain style and has lately done the = same with 5=20 points.

Question:

Is west OBLIGED to double 4H taking into account that west did not = show=20 values in the second round of the auction?

Reason why:

In 1981 members of the International Bridge Press = Association were=20 asked  what they would call with a given hand in a given auction. = Herman=20 Filarski answered: "I MUST double in the case that my partner has given = a=20 psychic bid. Herman had a correct feeling because "his partner " had = given a=20 psychic bid.

In the Code of Practice is written under Disclosure of psychic=20 tendencies:

A partnership may not defend itself against an allegation that its = psychic=20 action is based upon an understanding by claiming that, although the = partner had=20 an awareness of the possibility of a psychic in the given situation, the = partner's actions subsequent to the psychic have been entirely normal. = The=20 opponents are entitled to an equal and timely awareness of any = agreement,=20 explicit or implicit, since it may affect their choice of action and for = this=20 reason the understanding must be disclosed.

Awaiting your reactions,

Ben

------=_NextPart_000_0066_01C037BC.5F1A1CA0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 17 06:34:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9GKY8e28188 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 06:34:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9GKY1t28184 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 06:34:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from eduhi.at (petrus2.konvent [192.168.1.116]) by michael.gym (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA27958 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 22:31:35 -0400 Message-ID: <39EB6686.AC6F44D@eduhi.at> Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 22:35:18 +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] Teams of Four. References: <200010161824.OAA10416@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner schrieb: > If you scored up at halftime, it was probably legal. In general, the > ACBL considers half-matches (or quarters in full-day matches) to be > separate sessions. You can change partnerships, systems, etc. without > limitation. The same is true between matches in Swiss Teams events. > Every match is a separate session. > > I don't know where the exact of the regulations is found. It may be in > the Tech Files distributed with ACBLscore. > > As Brian says, though, in jurisdictions without specific regulations, > such switches would be illegal. > -- Not necessarily so: If you look up "session" in the Definitions, you will find that the term is meaningless unless specified by the SO. I just wonder what happens to L4 if the SO fails to specify the number of boards which are to constitute a session? Petrus -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 17 07:11:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9GLApd28219 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 07:10:51 +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 e9GLAjt28215 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 07:10:45 +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 RAA12363 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 17:10:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA10797 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 17:10:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 17:10:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200010162110.RAA10797@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Obligation to double after partners psychic bid? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Ben Schelen" > W N E S > pass pass 1D X > pass 2H pass 4H > ? (Any chance you could post without the extra lines and HTML?) I'm not sure what rules are in force in the Netherlands or what the EW methods are, but West's _second_ pass looks suspicious to me. Wouldn't 1NT be normal (with T62 AJ5 J76 Q652)? Pass wouldn't have occurred to me, but maybe this pair has special methods. Passing 4H seems normal enough. Even if partner has a full strength (not third seat) opener, it isn't obvious we could make anything or beat 4H, and double reduces our chance to beat it. Even if we were making 1NT, +100 for 4H-1 will be OK. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 17 07:20:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9GLKbK28239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 07:20:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9GLKWt28235 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 07:20:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 14:17:59 -0700 Message-ID: <015301c037b6$c2dcce00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <001b01c033ce$1bffc380$53b6f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: authority (was Scoring Q) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 14:19:21 -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 Ton Kooijman wrote: In reply to my: > >> > > >> I disagree. Let Ton Kooijman of the WBFLC give his opinion. I think > >> you will find he agrees with me. > >> > > > > I don't know what to agree with? Can anybody help me with giving me a simple > statement to be approved? > I thought it was obvious. Statement to be approved: (okay, two statements) The WBF Bylaws give the WBFLC, and no other LC, the responsibility for interpreting the Laws. Interpretations made by any other LC are tentative only, since they are subject to the approval of the WBFLC. 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 Oct 17 07:43:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9GLhiR28267 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 07:43:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9GLhbt28263 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 07:43:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivesac.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.113.76]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA30342 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 17:43:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001016174309.0121e5f4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 17:43:09 -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: <200010161612.MAA10321@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:12 PM 10/16/2000 -0400, Steve wrote: >L70A seems to state the principle pretty explicitly. No, it doesn't. The best that can be said is that in most instances, a contested claim will, when properly adjudicated, result in no particular advantage to either side, compared to what would have been the likely outcome had the hand been played out. But even granting that the principle I have enunciated can be broadly inferred from these Laws (and I have agreed that it can), doesn't it seem at least a little bit odd to be defending your interpretation of a law about revoke penalties with reference to a law about contested claims, when the situation in question does not involve a claim and is not contested? >The other thing, as David S. says, is that most of us believe every >deal contains 13 tricks, whether there is a claim or not. > Unfortunately, that conviction is not enough to answer the question posed. Do you also believe that every one of those 13 tricks has necessarily been won by a particular card? Because that is the condition stipulated for applying a two-trick penalty under L64A2. 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 Oct 17 07:52:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9GLqC228285 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 07:52:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9GLq5t28281 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 07:52:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivesac.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.113.76]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA16332 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 17:52:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001016175141.01216ad8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 17:51:41 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] Obligation to double after partners psychic bid? In-Reply-To: <006d01c037ab$c664bd40$de033dd4@default> 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 10/16/2000 +0200, Ben 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 > 8 5 3 6 2 > Q 10 5 3 > 9 8 7 4 A K Q 9 > K 9 7 4 A K 8 > J 3 S > X 4H ? Established facts: light ( not >more than that), BSC and HUM are not permitted (Law 40D), East explained to >the TD summoned that he intentionally has given a psychic bid, It is known >that East has a certain style and has lately done the same with 5 points. >Question: Is west OBLIGED to double 4H taking into account that west did >not show values in the second round of the auction? Reason why: what >they would call with a given hand in a given auction. Herman Filarski >answered: "I MUST double in the case that my partner has given a psychic >bid. Herman had a correct feeling because "his partner " had given a >psychic bid. In the Code of Practice is written under Disclosure of psychic > tendencies: A partnership may not defend itself against an allegation that >its psychic action is based upon an understanding by claiming that, >although the partner had an awareness of the possibility of a psychic in >the given situation, the partner's actions subsequent to the psychic have >been entirely normal. The opponents are entitled to an equal and timely >awareness of any agreement, explicit or implicit, since it may affect >their choice of action and for this reason the understanding must be >disclosed. No, of course West is not obliged to double. Which law suggests otherwise? Which is not to say that we might not choose to penalize EW if we can establish that 1) they had an undisclosed partnership agreement, and 2) NS have been damaged by the failure to disclose it. We might assign a PP even in the absence of 2), if the behavior of the EW team is sufficiently egregious, although in the present case I cannot see the basis for doing so. 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 Oct 17 08:22:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9GMLlG28322 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 08:21:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9GMLet28318 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 08:21:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.237] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13lIdJ-0001fD-00; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 23:21:25 +0100 Message-ID: <005c01c037bf$a4fe8a00$ed5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "ton kooijman" , "David J Grabiner" , References: <006101c0379d$b8776740$6bb6f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: [BLML] Comment on Maastricht minuted Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 22:51:34 +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 "A public-opinion poll is no substitute for thought." - Warren Buffett ----- Original Message ----- From: ton kooijman To: David J Grabiner ; Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 6:56 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Comment on Maastricht minuted > >What is the meaning of this interpretation? > > > >>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. > > ========= \x/ ========= > > I am not sure that I understand what you are saying. > If a pair got a 80% score on a board and you want to suggest them to receive > at most 60 because of an irregularity by its opponents you better keep your > mouth shut, or slightly better: tell them that they are not damaged by this > irregularity. And if you have to give them average-plus because you are > obliged to apply L12C1 there is no choice. > If you do not understand my reaction we are in trouble and in that case I > would like to ask you to give an example. The subject seems important to me. > > ton > +=+ I certainly have not grasped the point of this thread. What I believe the committee to have said is that if circumstances arise in which a board becomes unplayable then, if a NOS was placed to get better than ave plus on the board they will get an adjusted score that takes account of the fact if there was an irregularity on the part of opponents that made the board unplayable and so deprived them of it; but they will not get that advantage if the irregularity that occurs is not attributable to opponents but to some agency independent of either side. I suspect this is what ton is saying also, in his words? Going back to the +1100 obtained in room 1 I think the application of the principle is that if the board has become unplayable because of an irregularity that the Director can attribute to the side that scored minus 1100, then there will be a 12A1 score adjustment. If he is not able to determine that the minus side was responsible for any irregularity that occurred he cannot do that. However, if he believes the balance of probability is that the minus side has committed the irregularity he can make a score adjustment under 84E and get it to an AC. That would be my view of what the WBFLC has said, although the discussion was not so detailed that I can be 100% confident of this view. (I do not believe the committee had in mind any situation where a 12C1 adjustment is inappropriate because a result has been obtained on the board.) This sounds so easy, superficial, that I have to be missing some essential element. Please enlighten me. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 17 08:51:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9GMpcM28347 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 08:51:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9GMpWt28343 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 08:51:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 15:49:00 -0700 Message-ID: <017101c037c3$79f31ca0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200010151928.e9FJSwt26753@rgb.anu.edu.au> Subject: [BLML] WBFLC authority Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 15:45:13 -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: "Jens & Bodil" > Marvin L. French wrote (10 Oct 00): > > > From: "Jens & Bodil" > > > > We try > > > to stay abreast of the WBFLC's opinions, but we reserve the right > > > not to implement them. That is certainly fully consistent with > > > the by-laws of the DBF, and I hope that it is also fully > > > acknowledged by the EBL and the WBF. > > > > Maybe the DBF should write its own set of Laws next time, perhaps > > getting together with the ACBL in a splinter organization that > > believes that the rules of the game should not have central control. > > I am all for central control of the rules of the game. I have no > wish as such that the DBF should not use the laws as promulgated by > the WBF, and I have never met a Danish bridge player who did not > readily accept the Laws as the basis of the game. A WBFLC interpetation of the Laws becomes an integral part of the Laws, and therefore must also be accepted. > > Moreover, I do not desire that the DBF should deviate from a > mainstream interpretation of the rules. To the extent that the WBF > LC can provide a consistent flow of interpretations intended as > authoritative interpretations of the rules, I am happy if the > DBF follows them. The flow seems to be pretty good now, so I don't understand this. > > I am, however, wary of committing myself to implementing such > interpretations in the tempo they flow in. Faster and more widespread promulgation would be desirable. For instance, the ACBL gets interpretations from the WBFLC, but does not publish them (for various reasons that I won't go into here). > > The DBF has a tradition of being conservative in introducing > new interpretations at the drop of a hat. In the past decade, we > have refrained from following at least two trends: > > - procedural penalties for "convention disruption" Now you are off on a new subject. The WBFLC has had nothing to say on this matter, so far as I remember. "CD" is a Bobby Hobby that isn't accepted by any LC that I know of. > - practices that prohibit almost all instances of psyching "Practices"? But we are discussing WBFLC interpretations. The Conditions of Contest put out by the WBF have nothing to do with the WBFLC. What could be more reasonable than the WBFLC's Lille statement that "The Committee affirms that a psychic call or play which is evidently identified by the course of the auction or play, as a matter of general bridge knowledge, is not the subject of an understanding peculiar to that partnership and is a legitimate ploy." That doesn't sound like prohibition of "almost all instances of psyching" to me. > > To illustrate the latter point, we have maintained a box on our > convention cards for psyching frequency throughout the past twenty > years, even at times when a declaration of "frequent psyching" would > not have been accepted in a WBF tournament. The WBFLC is (well, in general) not responsible for WBF tournament practices, although it may comment on them. The ACBL had similar boxes on its CCs for many years, and removed them for no good reason. I applaud your usage of them, which should be universal. > > Although these two trends were very visible in the WBF, including > the latest WBF event in Denmark (1993), we conservatively refrained > from introducing them in Denmark. There was some effort made to keep > international players aware that different standards were imposed in > WBF event. To repeat.... > > On a similar note, the DBF has for the past 6 or 8 years steered a > middle course in the definition of "logical alternative". We have > been more restrictive than the traditional "7 out of 10" rule, but we > have never implemented the "would seriously consider" rule. Our > approach is "more than an insignificant minority would actually > choose". By happy coincidence, that seems to be very difficult to > distinguish from the approach laid down in the Code of Practice and > the minuted comments by the WBF LC. I cannot find WBFLC comments on this offhand. The *meaning* of "logical alternative" is not something to be interpreted, as the meaning is quite clear: A logical alternative is one that isn't illogical. What constitutes a logical bridge action is a matter for regulation, if that. The "would seriously consider" language comes from the ACBLLC, I believe, not the WBFLC, and is properly a local ACBL implementation guideline for L16A, not an interpretation of that Law. > > So, when the WBF LC announces an interpretation which is a radical > departure from our current practice, we may choose to be slow to > follow that interpretation. Rest assured that if the interpretation > makes it into a revision of the Laws, we will implement it > meticulously. As I said, official interpretations of the WBFLC have the immediate force of Law, even though there are promulgation and education problems. > > Just to make sure that readers with little knowledge of bridge in > Denmark don't get the impression that bridge in Denmark is conducted > to a set of rules that differs vastly from the views of the WBF LC, > I would like to point out that the only interpretations in the Code > of Practice and in the minutes from the WBF LC that I perceive as a > potentially contentious with DBF practice is the borderline for when > frequent psyching should be treated as a partnership agreement. And this should be a local decision, not one for the WBFLC, as long as the local implementation does not conflict with the language of the Laws. I had the impression that the WBFLC's words on this subject were aimed more at discouraging such conflicts than with the prevention of psychs. Evidently you think that the CoP's treatment of psychs has the force of Law. It does not. The CoP for Appeals Committees consists only of optional guidelines for ACs, which SOs are free to adopt or ignore as they wish (unless imposed by ZA regulation, of course). > > In Denmark, frequent psyching is not perceived as a problem, and the > tradition is somewhat more tolerant of frequent psychers than at > least the Code of Practice seems to be. We are debating whether to > follow the code of practice here, but we have not done so yet. The CoP is optional, so you are free to ignore it (unless imposed by regulation of the EBU, I suppose--I am not acquainted with the European organizational hierarchy). > (snip) > > In summary, it does not really surprise me that the members of the > WBF LC (and Marv) disagree with me. I see a division of power > between the WBF LC and the National Authorities. In essence, the > WBF LC is the ultimate legislative power - who may delegate some of > their powers to those who write regulations. I see the National > Authority as the ultimate judiciary power, who only rule on a very > small fractions of cases that hinge on a point of law, but whose > rulings affect [unfinished sentence-mlf] > > The real difference of opinion is probably whether comments on > interpretation from the WBF LC have the same legislative authority as > the laws themselves. The WBF LC presents formal arguments that they > do; I think I have pragmatic arguments that they should not. This is as good an opportunity as any to state some opinions that I don't have time to formulate with much care, and so can only convey their general idea. They might alleviate some of the problems we see. 1. The WBFLC should not revise the wording of a Law, write a new Law, or remove an existing Law, unless there is an emergency reason to do so. (Present policy, evidently) 2. The WBFLC should be more careful, when discussing a Law and issuing statements about it, to distinguish between (a) an official interpretation or revision of the Law that is to be treated by all as an integral part of the Law, and (b) implementation guidelines/rules that may be imposed on WBF events by the WBFLC but are optional for everyone else. It seems to me that many (a)-type statements coming from the WBFLC should have been (b)-type statements. Local organizations should be given fairly wide latitude as to how they choose to implement a Law, provided that what they do does not conflict with the wording or obvious intent of the Law. 3. Promulgation should be swift and widespread for (a) statements, with an expectation that all players and TDs will be informed about them in a timely manner. ("Please inform all your members that the following statements of the WBFLC are to be treated as a part of the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge.") 4. Promulgation of (b) statements should be swift, but sent only to interested(?) organizations with assurances that they are only recommendations. 5. In writing the next edition of the Laws, clarity and simplicity should be the chief considerations. Then maybe there won't be any need for "interpretations." 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 Oct 17 09:53:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9GNqpo28382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:52:51 +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 e9GNqit28378 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:52:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13lK3b-000Pzw-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 23:52:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 00:16:17 +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: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch wrote: >>From: David Stevenson >> > And while we're on it, 64B6 is stupid. >> > >> > A >> > K >> > >> >2 3 >> >2 3 >> > >> > K >> > A >> > >> >Whatever is led the other suit is trump. Anyone care for a penalty-free >> >revoke on the 12th trick? >> >> So what? Gains nothing, loses nothing, big deal. > > Are you saying that the 3 of trump was good for a trick? It gains >a trick for the revoking side. As this one is so easily corrected >before it's established: > > A > 2 >2 3 >A K > K > 3 > >Play an ace (a trump), partner sluffs the side suit three. Follow up >with the two, next player establishes the revoke, win a second trick >with the K. I think 64B6 attempted to be a statement of the obvious, but >it can do no good. If a revoke on the 12th trick can gain or lose >nothing, then 64B6 is entirely without need. I have no idea what you are talking about, but since you presumably know, I shall just state the obvious, and you can tell me where i went wrong. A revoke at T12 must be corrected under L62D1 [or if too late for that, under L64C a trick won by hte revoke is returned] so no-one gains from a T12 revoke. However, there is no penalty as L64B6 explains. So, in >> > A >> > K >> > >> >2 3 >> >2 3 >> > >> > K >> > A >> > >> >Whatever is led the other suit is trump. Anyone care for a penalty-free >> >revoke on the 12th trick? declarer gets two tricks because the revoke must be corrected. In this case you cash an ace, partner throws his 3, now > A > 2 >2 3 >A K > K > 3 declarer gets one trick bevcause the revoke must be corrected. But there is no penalty as L64B6 says: the non-revoker never gets an additional trick, so the revoke gains nothing, loses nothing. -- 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 Oct 17 10:07:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9H06tZ28406 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:06:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9H06mt28402 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:06:49 +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 13lKHF-0000tU-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:06:45 +0000 Message-ID: <2SeTUJAve565Ewbe@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 01:05:03 +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: <3.0.32.20001016100637.01164ec0@acsys.anu.edu.au> <3.0.1.32.20001015212428.0122c134@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20001015212428.0122c134@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: >There is also a misconception, furthered by David Stevenson's misleading >comments, that L64 generally entitles the NOS to "equity plus one", i.e., a >restoration of pre-irregularity equity plus a penalty trick. While this may >be approximately true in a statistical sense, even a cursory glance at L64 >(especially 64B and 64C) will demonstrate its fundamental falsity for any >particular hand. Many revoke penalties only return the NOS equity, with no >bonus tricks, and the effect of the revoke penalty in other cases is >actually a two-trick bonus above equity. So any argument that appeals to >some intrinsic fairness in these Laws is illusory. My comments were not misleading until you mis-quoted them. The idea of the current differentiation between one and two trick penalties is to provide a very rough approximation to an equity-based extra trick. Since it was meant as nothing more than very rough, to quote statistics to prove it often does not work this way is completely pointless and deliberately misleading. That is the general approach: it often works correctly: you lose that by your unfair and inequitable approach to penalising people for claiming. -- 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 Oct 17 10:21:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9H0L1P28428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:21:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9H0Ktt28424 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:20:55 +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 13lKUq-000Ocy-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 01:20:49 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 01:19:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Comment on Maastricht minuted References: <00101413132302.03328@psa836> <8KyRSeAcRR65Ew6s@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00101611471301.04596@psa836> In-Reply-To: <00101611471301.04596@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, 15 Oct 2000, David Stevenson wrote: >> David J Grabiner wrote: >> >What is the meaning of this interpretation? >> > >> >>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. >> > >> >I would interpret this as saying that a ruling of "+120 or >> >average-plus, whichever is better" is not allowed if the +120 is not a >> >bridge result, but if +120 was obtained at the table and the TD >> >believes that average-plus is a correct adjusted score for the >> >irregularity (which many TD's believe is allowed), then L12A comes into >> >play automatically, as the Laws provide insufficient indemnity if E-W's >> >infraction caused N-S to get a 60% score when they already had 80% >> >without it. > >> Or to put it another way, David, despite reading this thrice, I have >> no clue what you are saying, so perhaps you could run it past me again? > >This is because I couldn't understand what the committee was trying to >say. On BLML there was a thread where a pair were going to get 80% until something happened. Grattan suggested an artificial score of 80% was possible under the Law. I did not believe that was correct. The WBFLC have said that they agree with me. >How is it possible for a non-offending side to be disadvantaged by a >score of average-plus when L12C1 applies (no bridge result can be >obtained)? This seems to be the case the committee is addressing. You reach 7NT which has thirteen top tricks but no-one else in the room has bid. The opponents then manage to foul the board. Shame. HH did it by eating a card. >It appears the committee is ruling that, if no bridge result can be >obtained, a ruling of "Average-plus to N-S, or the +120 we think they >were likely to get if that is better than average-plus," is not >allowed; has anyone ever tried to make such a ruling? (If the +120 was >obtained at the table, then it is a bridge result and L12C1 should not >apply). A more obvious case which has occurred is where a player has a hand bid against him to a slam which is unlikely to be bid by his team mates and when it reaches the other table one of the cards ion his hand [was it the ace of hearts?] was found to be upturned. The board was deemed playable, and the ACBL TDs tried to correct it without using the Law book. When that did not work they tried the Law book and finally scrapped the board. In these situations I apply L12A1 and scr^H^H^Hchange the score so that the ch^H^Hnice person who accidentally put a card face upwards doe snot benefit. >I can now think of a case in which the other Laws might come into play. >In a Swiss match scored at won/loss, one team went for -1100 and then >fouled the board. The non-offenders were down by 6 IMPs without the >fouled board. Under a strict reading of L12C1, both sides lose the >match; the non-offenders get +3 on the fouled board, and the offenders >get -3 and a penalty of at least -6 for fouling the board. Equity >dictates that the non-offenders win the match here, because they would >probably have won without the opponents' infraction. Same thing: you cannot use L12C1, but you can use L12A1. >If this is what the Laws Committee meant, it should have been made more >clear. -- 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 Oct 17 10:23:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9H0Mxq28440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:22:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9H0Mqt28436 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:22:53 +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 13lKWm-0001rt-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:22:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 01:21:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Comment on Maastricht minuted References: <200010161912.PAA10544@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200010161912.PAA10544@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 >> I can now think of a case in which the other Laws might come into play. >> In a Swiss match scored at won/loss, one team went for -1100 and then >> fouled the board. The non-offenders were down by 6 IMPs without the >> fouled board. Under a strict reading of L12C1, both sides lose the >> match; the non-offenders get +3 on the fouled board, and the offenders >> get -3 and a penalty of at least -6 for fouling the board. Equity >> dictates that the non-offenders win the match here, because they would >> probably have won without the opponents' infraction. > >The above is really two separate problems (at least). > >Suppose first that the board is fouled at the table where the -1100 is >scored. In fact, we had exactly this case a couple of months ago, >where the side with the rotten score switched the EW curtain cards. I >_think_ the consensus was that L72B1 applied, although it wasn't >unanimous. L72B1 allows an _assigned_ adjusted score, which can >restore equity. I think the discussion at the Laws Commission proved that L12A1 works better. >Suppose instead that the board is successfully transferred to the other >table, but then (say) North grabs a hand out of a wrong board, making >this board unplayable. (Two cases here; it might have been either EW >or NS at the other table who were -1100.) Or maybe the caddy drops the >board and mixes up the cards. (Third case.) Is the side that scored >+1100 just out of luck? > >I think they are, in all three cases, but I'd like to be told >otherwise. Yeah, tough. Life. -- 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 Oct 17 10:29:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9H0T1V28454 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:29:02 +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-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 e9H0Stt28450 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:28:56 +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 13lKcc-000CHD-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:28:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 01:27:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. References: <001101c03714$c177c760$1b10ff3e@vnmvhhid> <001101c03748$59cdb3c0$b35908c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <001101c03748$59cdb3c0$b35908c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > >Grattan Endicott >"A public-opinion poll is no substitute for thought." > - Warren Buffett > > >> >> When player 5 returns to the playing area, and >> requests permission to sit, a member of another >> team objects. >> Player 5 is the strongest player of his team, >> and is stronger than any other player in the field. >> >> How do you rule:- >> If a) there are still 3 rounds to play? >> b) if there is just one round left to play? >> > >> Anne >> >+=+ Why are we told what number of rounds >is left to play? > Why is a judgemental comment about >the strength of the player included? > It is unlikely that either of these factors >is present in anything that governs the >matter. Certainly not the second one. > Apply Law 4. It is a fairly common >failing that, if at all, Directors and others do >not begin to read the laws until about law 6, >or even later than that. The Director will >allow a substitution if the regulations >positively authorize it (or in an emergency). OK, Grattan, but how do you apply L4? I shall tell you that in this case it has already been discussed by Anne and myself, and we did read L4, but we are not in agreement as to its effect in this case. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 17 10:30:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9H0UK528466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:30:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9H0UEt28462 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:30:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13lKdv-0002WE-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:30:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 01:28:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. References: <200010161607.MAA10312@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200010161607.MAA10312@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: "Brian Baresch" >> In both cases, with the facts as given, I rule that player 5 can sit down >> and play since he's a member of the team and has complied with all >> regulations. > >Seems right to me too, _unless_ there are a couple of regulations along >the lines of: >1. You must play 50% of the boards to qualify for the next round. >2. You may not continue to play if you cannot qualify to play in >the next round. You will remember that Anne said that the *only* relevant regs were the ones she quoted. Therefore neither of these regs 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 Oct 17 10:35:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9H0Zj928480 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:35:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9H0Zdt28476 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:35:39 +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 13lKj7-0002up-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:35:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 01:34:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] sympathy (was concession) References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6C2@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6C2@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: > So we are left with a problem: if a straightforward reading >> of L64A2 seems >> at odds with an implicit principle concerning the treatment >> of claims and >> concessions, should we adopt an ad hoc approach to ruling on >> these cases, >> or are we better off simply applying the Laws as written, >> even when the >> result "feels" unjust? I regret that my advocacy of the >> latter approach has >> provoked such hard feelings, and appreciate the sympathetic >> comments from >> Todd and David B. >> >> Mike Dennis >> -- > >How can you expect a sympathetic comment from me when you suggest not to >apply the laws? >And don't believe that David B. was joining you (he is much too quiet). He >is not the one advocating not to follow the laws, but saying that it is >impossible to follow them. > >Now a to be considered constructive contribution. Not knowing what would >have happened if play had continued why do we not apply 12c3 now it is >available for TD's? Because this is not assigning a score. >To make it more complicated (so constructiveness has left me again), what if >revoker tells you that he knew he revoked (and the laws) and would have >played avoiding to win THE trick? Well, you could see whether there was any evidence to support it [perhaps he had already taken some avoiding action]. But generally, you act as normal, get all the info, consult, make a judgement decision, give the benefit of the doubt ... That last is the problem, of course. >This 12c3 combined with a revoke reminds me of the examination in the EBL-TD >course in 1981 (or '82?), where I was a student (and (if I remember well) >Max Bavin was, and Claude Dadoun, and Tommy Sandsmark, among 60 others). > > KQJT > - > - > - >8 A9 >3 2 - >- 4 >2 5 > 4 > A > A > A > >South declarer in NT, on lead in dummy claims the last three tricks, showing >his hand. East concedes and puts his hand down. West studies for a while and >calls the director, not agreeing with the claim. South could not know the >positions of the remaining cards. > >What decision should the director take? > >The Dutch participants could have known this problem since it had appeared >in Dutch courses before (and once having seen it you don't forget it, how >else could I type it down here?). So confidently I marked 1 trick to NS as >the decision (multiple choice with the answers 3, 2, 1, 0 tricks). No doubt correct. >You think it to be an advantage to know the questions? Not in bridge since >our examination committee had its own ideas about the right answers, as we >still have (they were Harold Franklin and Jimmy Ortiz Patino). > >You saw the problem? East, demanded so by west, is allowed to play the spade >9 and to take the next trick. Now south is squeezed and according to the >laws is supposed to play the wrong aces loosing them all. That is what we >thought. The answer appeared to be that south could have played the heart >ace first, making 3 tricks, a minor ace and then the heart ace, making 2 >tricks or both minor aces first, making only one trick. They considered all >of them as equal possibilities (which is not true with only one diamond >left) and decided for the average being 2 tricks. Really inventive. Most of >us were furious. > >I assume some of you to be proud of this solution. I would have asked them to show me the Law they were applying. -- 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 Oct 17 10:40:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9H0eTb28495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:40:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9H0eMt28491 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:40:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13lKng-000Bja-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:40:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 01:39:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Obligation to double after partners psychic bid? References: <006d01c037ab$c664bd40$de033dd4@default> In-Reply-To: <006d01c037ab$c664bd40$de033dd4@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: Pairs contest, experienced pairs for years, regional top level B12 J 7 4 N/S Q 10 8 3 D:W 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 2H pass 4H ? Established facts: CC EW: third hand bid can be light ( not more than that), BSC and HUM are not permitted (Law 40D), East explained to the TD summoned that he intentionally has given a psychic bid, It is known that East has a certain style and has lately done the same with 5 points. Question: Is west OBLIGED to double 4H taking into account that west did not show values in the second round of the auction? Reason why: In 1981 members of the International Bridge Press Association were asked what they would call with a given hand in a given auction. Herman Filarski answered: "I MUST double in the case that my partner has given a psychic bid. Herman had a correct feeling because "his partner " had given a psychic bid. In the Code of Practice is written under Disclosure of psychic tendencies: A partnership may not defend itself against an allegation that its psychic action is based upon an understanding by claiming that, although the partner had an awareness of the possibility of a psychic in the given situation, the partner's actions subsequent to the psychic have been entirely normal. The opponents are entitled to an equal and timely awareness of any agreement, explicit or implicit, since it may affect their choice of action and for this reason the understanding must be disclosed. Awaiting your reactions, Ben -- 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 Oct 17 11:34:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9H1Y1d28545 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 11:34:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f269.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9H1Xtt28541 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 11:33:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 18:33:47 -0700 Received: from 172.171.8.215 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 01:33:47 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.171.8.215] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 18:33:47 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Oct 2000 01:33:47.0894 (UTC) FILETIME=[4BB53960:01C037DA] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson > I have no idea what you are talking about, but since you presumably >know, I shall just state the obvious, and you can tell me where i went >wrong. > > A revoke at T12 must be corrected under L62D1 [or if too late for >that, under L64C a trick won by hte revoke is returned] so no-one gains >from a T12 revoke. However, there is no penalty as L64B6 explains. The transfer of that trick is part of the penalty. Why are you returning the trick under 64C when 64B6 says not to? -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 Oct 17 11:43:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9H1hH928567 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 11:43:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f74.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9H1hBt28563 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 11:43:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 18:43:03 -0700 Received: from 172.171.8.215 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 01:43:03 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.171.8.215] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 18:43:03 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Oct 2000 01:43:03.0294 (UTC) FILETIME=[96C089E0:01C037DB] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson > I have no idea what you are talking about, but since you presumably >know, I shall just state the obvious, and you can tell me where i went >wrong. > > A revoke at T12 must be corrected under L62D1 [or if too late for >that, under L64C a trick won by hte revoke is returned] so no-one gains >from a T12 revoke. However, there is no penalty as L64B6 explains. The transfer of the trick won is part of the penalty. Why return it under 64C when 64B6 say not to? I appreciate the sentiment that a revoke on trick 12 is so easy to correct that we can correct it without applying any penalty. However that's inconsistent with the way revokes on tricks 1 through 11 are dealt with which may or may not be as easy to correct. -Todd (and it's still a redundant law) _________________________________________________________________________ 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 Oct 17 12:29:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9H2TLO28596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 12:29:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9H2TFt28592 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 12:29:16 +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 13lMV4-0002pd-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 03:29:10 +0100 Message-ID: <0WHspFAFl765Ewbh@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 03:28:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Obligation to double after partners psychic bid? References: <006d01c037ab$c664bd40$de033dd4@default> In-Reply-To: <006d01c037ab$c664bd40$de033dd4@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <006d01c037ab$c664bd40$de033dd4@default>, Ben Schelen writes > > Board 12 W/NS pairs contest, experienced pairs for years, regional > top level > I have no reason to suppose I can defeat 4H. It is clear that partner is light, and probably long in Ds. I can envisage 1 trick in each of H, D and C. It wouldn't cross my mind to double even when playing with me as my partner. And even knowing what my 1D opener might be, I'll happily sketch hands to the TD and the AC where I'm conceding an overtrick. One is allowed to know that green ferdinands are part of bridge. The pass of 1D x is perhaps dubious, but West has no pressing need to bid with a 4 triple 3, 11 loser hand. Looks like sour grapes to me. I'll fine NS for wasting my time. cheers john >                       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     2H               pass         4H >   ? -- 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 Oct 17 12:38:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9H2caE28614 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 12:38:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9H2cTt28610 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 12:38:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcauhbk.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.69.116]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA18655 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 22:38:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <002c01c037e3$4ccd4a00$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <3.0.1.32.20001016174309.0121e5f4@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 22:38:14 -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: "Michael S. Dennis" To: Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 5:43 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke > > > Unfortunately, that conviction is not enough to answer the question posed. > Do you also believe that every one of those 13 tricks has necessarily been > won by a particular card? Because that is the condition stipulated for > applying a two-trick penalty under L64A2. > > Mike Dennis > > -- At last we get to the root of the whole thread, IMO. Yes, every trick has been won by a particular card (the exception is penalty tricks transferred by the TD). In the case of most concessions (and many claims), we neither know nor care exactly which card(s) won the tricks in question. However, when there is a revoke, it can matter who took which trick in the end position. In the two-card end position we have been discussing (declarer has won 11 tricks, one defender has revoked early, declarer concedes after taking his 11 winners), suppose that declarer had no choices: a) Declarer's only play (had he not conceded) was to surrender the remaining tricks to the defender who did not revoke. Is there any problem with a one-trick revoke penalty here? b) Declarer's only play (had ne not conceded) was to surrender the remaining tricks to the defender who revoked, who would then win a trick with a card that could legally have been played to the revoke trick. Does anyone have a problem with a two-trick penalty in this situation? Presumably, most of us will agree what the penalty should be when the end position is clear (I should know better than to say something like this, of course). We now go back to the case in question where the end position is ambiguous. Declarer had two suits remaining, and could have put either defender in, with one play resulting in a one-trick penalty, and the other play resulting in a two-trick penalty. We now have to rule, based on who won those tricks. This was easily done when the end position was clear, however, we're now missing a very critical bit of factual information. We do not (and cannot) know who won the tricks in question, as the answer depends on a play that was never made (nor was there a reason for it to be made, except to protect against a revoke). We must rule something (85B), and we cannot do so without making a determination of who won the tricks. In making that determination, we can rule that the tricks were taken in a way that favors the NOS (two-trick penalty), or we can rule the tricks were taken in a way that favors the OS (one-trick penalty). I rule in favor of the NOS and move on. 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 Oct 17 12:57:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9H2vdM28646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 12:57:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9H2vXt28642 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 12:57:33 +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 WAA28896 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 22:51:51 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20001016174309.0121e5f4@pop.mindspring.com> References: <3.0.1.32.20001016174309.0121e5f4@pop.mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 22:55:37 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 "Michael S. Dennis" writes: >Unfortunately, that conviction is not enough to answer the question posed. >Do you also believe that every one of those 13 tricks has necessarily been >won by a particular card? Because that is the condition stipulated for >applying a two-trick penalty under L64A2. I dunno what Steve believes, and my opinion probably doesn't count for much, but here's what I believe: A trick consists of four cards. When adjudicating a claim or concession, the winner of claimed or conceded tricks is determined by examining the cards the TD expects would be played to a given trick, and seeing which one is highest ranking. So yes, every one of the thirteen tricks in a hand has necessarily been won by a particular card. 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/AwUBOevAD72UW3au93vOEQK6nQCgqQjUUZABHnicPDvKU/UCDQRVvtQAoODA G3K+SaoVYu3flranOLMS/uHe =5ECt -----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 Oct 17 13:14:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9H3ENg28681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 13:14:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.pinehurst.net (mail.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9H3EHt28677 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 13:14:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from mom (spmax4-55.pinehurst.net [12.4.97.119]) by mail.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA42987 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 23:14:10 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from nancy@pinehurst.net) Message-ID: <001e01c037e8$0cb1e7a0$7761040c@mom> Reply-To: "nancy" From: "nancy" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] official scorer Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 23:12:12 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001B_01C037C6.844153E0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C037C6.844153E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable We are having a local discussion here about who is responsible for the = official score keeping at the table. All the tournaments have the pick = up slips at the North position at the table. Is there law, policy, = regulation, or procedure written anywhere that designates who is the = official score keeper? I thought I had read it in the law book saying = North was in charge of the scoring but cannot find it and the only = reference I can find is in the Tech Manual in ACBL score and that just = relates to writing the score on the score slip or convention card before = leading. Any help on this one????=20 Nancy=20 ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C037C6.844153E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
We are having a local = discussion here about=20 who is responsible for the official score keeping at the table.  = All the=20 tournaments have the pick up slips at the North position at the = table.  Is=20 there law, policy, regulation, or procedure written anywhere that = designates who=20 is the official score keeper?  I thought I had read it in the law = book=20 saying North was in charge of the scoring but cannot find it and the = only=20 reference I can find is in the Tech Manual in ACBL score and that just = relates=20 to writing the score on the score slip or convention card before = leading. =20 Any help on this one???? 
 
Nancy =
------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C037C6.844153E0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 17 14:00:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9H3xxk28720 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 13:59:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9H3xqt28716 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 13:59:53 +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 13lNum-000Df3-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 03:59:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 03:55:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. References: <001101c03714$c177c760$1b10ff3e@vnmvhhid> <001101c03748$59cdb3c0$b35908c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes snip, 5th player halfway through session > > OK, Grattan, but how do you apply L4? I shall tell you that in this >case it has already been discussed by Anne and myself, and we did read >L4, but we are not in agreement as to its effect in this case. > If the CoC permits a fifth and or sixth player and an exchange during a session then the "session" ends for the fourth player when he leaves (he has finished, he has left) and it starts for the fifth player (he has arrived and started to play). Since the partnership is new these "sessions" apply to the pair in question not just the player. I have no problem with this interpretation. A session of bridge is one where I sit and play, essentially, without interruption. It doesn't have to consist of all the boards available for me to play. Of course we can't have one of the NS players switching to EW because that would be no longer a "same" partnership, but we can have "new" partnerships. -- 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 Oct 17 14:51:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9H4oqx28755 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 14:50:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe4.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.108]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9H4okt28751 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 14:50:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 21:50:37 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [205.208.129.182] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <3.0.1.32.20001016174309.0121e5f4@pop.mindspring.com> <002c01c037e3$4ccd4a00$0200000a@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 23:52:58 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Oct 2000 04:50:37.0867 (UTC) FILETIME=[CB0017B0:01C037F5] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Hirsch Davis To: Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 9:38 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke | | ----- Original Message ----- | From: "Michael S. Dennis" | To: | Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 5:43 PM | Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke | | | > > | > Unfortunately, that conviction is not enough to answer the question | posed. | > Do you also believe that every one of those 13 tricks has | necessarily been | > won by a particular card? Because that is the condition stipulated | for | > applying a two-trick penalty under L64A2. | > | > Mike Dennis | > | > -- | | At last we get to the root of the whole thread, IMO. Yes, every trick | has been won by a particular card (the exception is penalty tricks | transferred by the TD). In the case of most concessions (and many | claims), we neither know nor care exactly which card(s) won the tricks | in question. However, when there is a revoke, it can matter who took | which trick in the end position. | | In the two-card end position we have been discussing (declarer has won | 11 tricks, one defender has revoked early, declarer concedes after | taking his 11 winners), suppose that declarer had no choices: | | a) Declarer's only play (had he not conceded) was to surrender the | remaining tricks to the defender who did not revoke. Is there any | problem with a one-trick revoke penalty here? | | b) Declarer's only play (had ne not conceded) was to surrender the | remaining tricks to the defender who revoked, who would then win a | trick with a card that could legally have been played to the revoke | trick. Does anyone have a problem with a two-trick penalty in this | situation? | | Presumably, most of us will agree what the penalty should be when the | end position is clear (I should know better than to say something like | this, of course). | | We now go back to the case in question where the end position is | ambiguous. Declarer had two suits remaining, and could have put | either defender in, with one play resulting in a one-trick penalty, | and the other play resulting in a two-trick penalty. We now have to | rule, based on who won those tricks. This was easily done when the | end position was clear, however, we're now missing a very critical bit | of factual information. We do not (and cannot) know who won the | tricks in question, as the answer depends on a play that was never | made (nor was there a reason for it to be made, except to protect | against a revoke). We must rule something (85B), and we cannot do so | without making a determination of who won the tricks. In making that | determination, we can rule that the tricks were taken in a way that | favors the NOS (two-trick penalty), or we can rule the tricks were | taken in a way that favors the OS (one-trick penalty). I rule in | favor of the NOS and move on. | | Hirsch In the case where there is doubt as to which defender takes tricks, to rule that a particular defender [the revoker] takes one has the characteristic of claiming revoker wins a trick by an unstated line of play. The standard provided by L70 is that this doubtful point is ruled unfavorably against claimer [in this case conceder] because the revoke penalty makes a difference. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 17 15:17:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9H5Gws28791 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 15:16:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9H5Gnt28787 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 15:16:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ha209541 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 14:47:38 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-211-25.tmns.net.au ([203.54.211.25]) by mail5.bigpond.com (Claudes-Multi-Threaded-MailRouter V2.9c 9/6672135); 17 Oct 2000 14:47:18 Message-ID: <01b401c037fd$b104a8a0$c5d536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] official scorer Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 15:46:24 +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 Nancy wrote: >We are having a local discussion here about who is >responsible for the official score keeping at the table. >All the tournaments have the pick up slips at the North >position at the table. Is there law, policy, regulation, or >procedure written anywhere that designates who is the >official score keeper? I thought I had read it in the law >book saying North was in charge of the scoring but >cannot find it and the only reference I can find is in the >Tech Manual in ACBL score and that just relates to >writing the score on the score slip or convention card >before leading. Any help on this one???? I don't know how relevant it is, but Law 7D says: "Responsibility for Procedures Any contestant remaining at a table throughout a session is primarily responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play at the table." Being Australian, I am unaware of any ACBL regulations which might apply, but it is possible that the above Law includes scorekeeping procedures. By the way, one Sydney club has made South rather than North primarily responsible for scoring, partly so that at the end of Round 1, it's easy to avoid recording the EW hands on the scoresheet back to front. 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 Tue Oct 17 15:56:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9H5u8x28830 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 15:56:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9H5u1t28826 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 15:56:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis240.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.240]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.1999.06.13.00.20) with ESMTP id <0G2K00C058H7WT@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 07:55:57 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 07:55:53 +0200 From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke In-reply-to: X-Sender: Richard.Bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de To: Roger Pewick , blml Message-id: <5.0.0.25.0.20001017075220.00a4aeb0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <3.0.1.32.20001016174309.0121e5f4@pop.mindspring.com> <002c01c037e3$4ccd4a00$0200000a@mindspring.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: >Hirsch wrote: >| >| At last we get to the root of the whole thread, IMO. Yes, every trick >| has been won by a particular card (the exception is penalty tricks >| transferred by the TD). In the case of most concessions (and many >| claims), we neither know nor care exactly which card(s) won the tricks >| in question. However, when there is a revoke, it can matter who took >| which trick in the end position. >| >| In the two-card end position we have been discussing (declarer has won >| 11 tricks, one defender has revoked early, declarer concedes after >| taking his 11 winners), suppose that declarer had no choices: >| >| a) Declarer's only play (had he not conceded) was to surrender the >| remaining tricks to the defender who did not revoke. Is there any >| problem with a one-trick revoke penalty here? >| >| b) Declarer's only play (had ne not conceded) was to surrender the >| remaining tricks to the defender who revoked, who would then win a >| trick with a card that could legally have been played to the revoke >| trick. Does anyone have a problem with a two-trick penalty in this >| situation? >| >| Presumably, most of us will agree what the penalty should be when the >| end position is clear (I should know better than to say something like >| this, of course). >| >| We now go back to the case in question where the end position is >| ambiguous. Declarer had two suits remaining, and could have put >| either defender in, with one play resulting in a one-trick penalty, >| and the other play resulting in a two-trick penalty. We now have to >| rule, based on who won those tricks. This was easily done when the >| end position was clear, however, we're now missing a very critical bit >| of factual information. We do not (and cannot) know who won the >| tricks in question, as the answer depends on a play that was never >| made (nor was there a reason for it to be made, except to protect >| against a revoke). We must rule something (85B), and we cannot do so >| without making a determination of who won the tricks. In making that >| determination, we can rule that the tricks were taken in a way that >| favors the NOS (two-trick penalty), or we can rule the tricks were >| taken in a way that favors the OS (one-trick penalty). I rule in >| favor of the NOS and move on. >| Great analysis. But IMO wrong conclusion. >| Hirsch > >In the case where there is doubt as to which defender takes tricks, to >rule that a particular defender [the revoker] takes one has the >characteristic of claiming revoker wins a trick by an unstated line of >play. The standard provided by L70 is that this doubtful point is ruled >unfavorably against claimer [in this case conceder] because the revoke >penalty makes a difference. That is, what I would have thought either. At least L64C is still in the background to avoid "inequity" decisions. Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 17 16:25:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9H6OuK28862 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 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 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 e9H6Opt28858 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 16:24:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ka216226 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 16:24:38 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-211-25.tmns.net.au ([203.54.211.25]) by mail5.bigpond.com (Claudes-Missionary-MailRouter V2.9c 9/6737586); 17 Oct 2000 16:24:37 Message-ID: <01ef01c0380b$48d9c180$c5d536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 17:24:27 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >It is a one session multiple teams event of seven teams. >... There will be six rounds each of 4 boards... > >The team that has 5 members wishes to field all 5 during >the qualifier. It is anticipated that the 5th member will >replace one of the others at some point during the evening. >Player 5 will not be present until such time as he replaces >another, and this is to be done between rounds. Player 5 tells >you - the TD- at the beginning of the event that this is planned. "Player 5" is a 'player', i.e. a member of a team. I find it almost incomprehensible that some people seem to describe him as a substitute. Does a SO really have to define that a substitute is someone who isn't in the team? Perhaps I'm wrong. I just glanced at the (online) NSWBA Tournament Regulations which govern bridge played in Sydney. They include these definitions: +>>>"Terminology +>>> Unit means the original team, pair or individual, but +>>> includes augmented players (in the case of teams +>>> events), and players who become permanent (see +>>> clause 4.5.5). For a teams event, a unit shall consist +>>> of four, five or six members. For a pairs event, a unit +>>> shall consist of two members. +>>> Substitute means a non-unit player who represents +>>> that unit for one session or a part thereof. +>>> Substitution means the replacement of a non-unit +>>> member by a substitute for one session or a part thereof." Come to think of it, I recall being on the Committee which wrote those rules, many years ago. What a cruel twist of fate. >You have to guide you the Law book, and a set of >regulations, the pertinent ones being as follows.:- Law 4 says in part: "In ... teams events, the contestants enter as ... teams and retain the same partnerships throughout a session (except in the case of substitutes authorised by the Director)." Of course it could technically be pointed out that a partnership can by definition consist of three people, but we won't do that because it might be considered petty. Chapter 1 of the Laws (Definitions section) says: "Session: An extended period of play during which a number of boards, specified by the SO, is scheduled to be played." Anne quotes no SO rule about the length of a session so there presumably is no such rule in her region. Thus Law 81A seems to become important: "Official Status The Director is the official representative of the SO." (The only other possibly-relevant Law seems to be Law 8C which defines End of Session.) I think under Law 81A I would rule that for this particular event the end of the Round is the end of a "session" and that the player can play, because that makes the event run smoothly and fairly, and the petulant (?) complainant (who possibly wants to avoid playing against the strong player) does not pull off a (possibly) bridge-lawyering coup. Much ado to arrive at the logical outcome, methinks. Perhaps I've stuffed up my logic somewhere but if so, it certainly isn't the first time. Peter Gill Australia. (would conservatives please refrain from reading my footnote?) Footnote: when I run School games, I sometimes write into the Regulations the Interchange Rule (IR) in order to facilitate threesomes and/or teams of five. The IR is that a threesome may switch seats at any time, subject to some obvious provisos. This rule requires a very liberal interpretation of Law 4 - the threesome enters as a pair, then plays as a partnership of three (yes, I see I've unwittingly been breaking the Law/Rules and I'm not sure what to do about it now that I know). A more conservative approach is to permit personnel switches only between hands, but the kids love the idea of having an "Opening Lead pinch-hitter" or a specialist declarer who has to sit kibitzing the bidding and defence for the session. Some pairs have played that the third member of the partnership (forcibly kibitzing) replaces any declarer who goes down or any defender who should have beaten a contract. Such pairs seem to change personnel almost every hand. Some of you might think I'm mad, but promoting fun aspects of bridge to kids seems to work, and it's much more popular than forcing leftover kids to play with "oldies". -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 17 16:34:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9H6Y9N28876 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 16:34:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9H6Y3t28872 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 16:34:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.191] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13lQJy-0006pd-00; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 07:33:59 +0100 Message-ID: <000a01c03804$74500600$bf5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Petrus Schuster OSB" , "BLML" References: <200010161824.OAA10416@cfa183.harvard.edu> <39EB6686.AC6F44D@eduhi.at> Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 23:29:00 +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 "A public-opinion poll is no substitute for thought." - Warren Buffett ----- Original Message ----- From: Petrus Schuster OSB To: BLML Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 9:35 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. > > -- > Not necessarily so: If you look up "session" in the Definitions, you > will find that the term is meaningless unless specified by the SO. > I just wonder what happens to L4 if the SO fails to specify the number > of boards which are to constitute a session? > +=+ It is the duty then of the Director to repair the omission. Law 81A, 81B1 and Law 81C3. ~ 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 Oct 17 17:01:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9H70NV28901 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 17:00:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9H70Ft28897 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 17:00:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id IAA01638 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 08:57:33 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Oct 17 08:58:55 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 <01JVFS5Y9WUE000TYW@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 08:56:58 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 08:53:40 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 08:56:56 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Comment on Maastricht minuted To: "'David J Grabiner'" , David Stevenson , David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6C5@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David G. said: > > I can now think of a case in which the other Laws might come > into play. > In a Swiss match scored at won/loss, one team went for -1100 and then > fouled the board. The non-offenders were down by 6 IMPs without the > fouled board. Under a strict reading of L12C1, both sides lose the > match; the non-offenders get +3 on the fouled board, and the offenders > get -3 and a penalty of at least -6 for fouling the board. Equity > dictates that the non-offenders win the match here, because they would > probably have won without the opponents' infraction. > > If this is what the Laws Committee meant, it should have been > made more > clear. Ok, we apologize, but this is an example the LC thought of. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 17 17:31:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9H7VPB28927 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 17:31:25 +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 e9H7VIt28923 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 17:31:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.200] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13lRDN-0007it-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 08:31:14 +0100 Message-ID: <003c01c0380c$7413edc0$bf5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <001101c03714$c177c760$1b10ff3e@vnmvhhid><001101c03748$59cdb3c0$b35908c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 08:30:36 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "A public-opinion poll is no substitute for thought." - Warren Buffett ----- Original Message ----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 3:55 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. > In article , David Stevenson > writes > > snip, 5th player halfway through session > > > > OK, Grattan, but how do you apply L4? I shall tell you that in this > >case it has already been discussed by Anne and myself, and we did read > >L4, but we are not in agreement as to its effect in this case. > > > If the CoC permits a fifth and or sixth player and an exchange during a > session then the "session" ends for the fourth player when he leaves (he > has finished, he has left) and it starts for the fifth player (he has > arrived and started to play). Since the partnership is new these > "sessions" apply to the pair in question not just the player. I have no > problem with this interpretation. > > A session of bridge is one where I sit and play, essentially, without > interruption. It doesn't have to consist of all the boards available for > me to play. > > Of course we can't have one of the NS players switching to EW because > that would be no longer a "same" partnership, but we can have "new" > partnerships. > -- +=+ Perhaps Law 4 is expressed too simply. With the exception of substitutions authorized by the Director *the same* partnerships are retained in play for the whole of a session. The SO, or by default the Director, specifies what is a 'session' and thus what is the point at which the partnerships may be changed. Ally these restrictions to the principle that specific authorization in law or regulation is required for an action and I do not see where there can be a gap through which a team can seek to drive a coach and horses. Absence of prohibition does not permit, and this is a clear case where the reason for that fail-safe provision is evident. A 'new' or a 'changed' partnership can only enter the play between one session and the next. The Director has full discretion to allow a substitution; the SO will normally guide him on the policy for this, but in general it is poor direction if the Director does not require substantial cause before allowing the basic condition at which the law aims to be overturned. ~ 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 Oct 17 17:32:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9H7WUU28940 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 17:32:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9H7WNt28936 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 17:32:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA09490 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:32:20 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Oct 17 09:33:43 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 <01JVFTD7MOYQ000QHF@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:31:51 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:28:33 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:31:45 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] sympathy (was concession) To: "'David Stevenson'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6C7@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 (ton) said (discussing a claim after a revoke by opponents): > >Now a to be considered constructive contribution. Not > knowing what would > >have happened if play had continued why do we not apply 12c3 > now it is > >available for TD's? on which David S. replied: > Because this is not assigning a score. What do you mean with that? TD is called and has to decide how many tricks declarer (and opponents) get. Isn't he assigning a score then? ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 17 17:39:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9H7dlP28958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 17:39:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9H7det28954 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 17:39:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA28384 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:39:36 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Oct 17 09:41:01 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 <01JVFTLXLRCM000V8I@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:38:52 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:35:34 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:38:50 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke To: "'Michael S. Dennis'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6C8@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 > > > Unfortunately, that conviction is not enough to answer the > question posed. > Do you also believe that every one of those 13 tricks has > necessarily been > won by a particular card? Because that is the condition stipulated for > applying a two-trick penalty under L64A2. > > Mike Dennis Yes that seems the right question. My answer would be: not necessarily, but in case the TD has to apply law 64 he has to. And if the 'Probst' conditions are valid everybody wants to know whether the last trick could be won with the Diamond 7 (if I remember well). Which even might result in the condition not to be allowed to claim at all, without telling when this card is played. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 17 17:46:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9H7kWt28979 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 17:46:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9H7kPt28975 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 17:46:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA10865 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:46:21 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Oct 17 09:47:14 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 <01JVFTU7DSB2000U27@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:45:33 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:42:15 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:45:32 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] official scorer To: "'nancy'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6C9@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 We are having a local discussion here about who is responsible for the official score keeping at the table. All the tournaments have the pick up slips at the North position at the table. Is there law, policy, regulation, or procedure written anywhere that designates who is the official score keeper? I thought I had read it in the law book saying North was in charge of the scoring but cannot find it and the only reference I can find is in the Tech Manual in ACBL score and that just relates to writing the score on the score slip or convention card before leading. Any help on this one???? Nancy We had something with North in L7 before, but it was removed. If I remember well it had to do with control of the boards, not the scoring. It should be in the regulations as is the case in WBF events, saying that the NS side is responsible for the scoring. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 17 18:00:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9H80ER29004 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 18:00:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9H807t29000 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 18:00:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA30134 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:16:15 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Oct 17 09:15:51 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 <01JVFSRF5548000V5M@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:14:17 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:10:58 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:14:14 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Re: authority (was Scoring Q) To: "'Marvin L. French'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6C6@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 > Ton Kooijman wrote: > > In reply to my: > > >> > > > >> I disagree. Let Ton Kooijman of the WBFLC give his opinion. I > think > > >> you will find he agrees with me. > > >> > > > > > > > > I don't know what to agree with? Can anybody help me with giving me > a simple > > statement to be approved? > > > I thought it was obvious. > > Statement to be approved: (okay, two statements) > > The WBF Bylaws give the WBFLC, and no other LC, the responsibility for > interpreting the Laws. As far as it seemed obvious I answered already. Let me repeat; The WBF bylaws do not say that no other LC may interpret the laws. But you can predict the problem if other LC start to interpret. > > Interpretations made by any other LC are tentative only, since they > are subject to the approval of the WBFLC. This is kind of an interpretation itself. Who am I to forbid you to make it? Other interpetations are not subject to the approval of the WBFLC (I couldn't read anything about that in our bylaws). I you want to say that interpretations of the laws by others than the WBFLC can not have the status of jurisprudence etc. within the WBF I am willing to agree with you. Which leaves the question whether bridge played within the jurisdiction of a zone or NBO is automatically played within the jurisdiction of the WBF as well. If I had to advise the WBF counsil my advise would be not to demand that. But we might already have regulations saying that this is the case. Don't put too much effort in finding that. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 17 18:29:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9H8Str29033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 18:28:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f272.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.50]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9H8Snt29029 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 18:28:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 01:28:41 -0700 Received: from 172.140.224.248 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 08:28:41 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.140.224.248] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 01:28:41 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Oct 2000 08:28:41.0443 (UTC) FILETIME=[416B5B30:01C03814] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Some for comparison. Euchre: http://w3.one.net/~dbarker/cards/euchre.html Revoke: Failure to follow suit when able to is a revoke. A player may correct his revoke before a trick is gathered. Otherwise it stands as an established revoke, meaning the opponents of the offender may score 2 points or may deduct 2 points from the revoking team (deduct 4 points if the offending team was a lone player). Note if you don't play euchre, you can score 1, 2, or 4 points and a game is to 10 points. Pinochle: http://members.aol.com/ampinochle/npa/rules.html Renege: The penalty for a renege is that the opposing team gets the bid plus their meld. If a renege is called and not proved, the person calling the renege has committed a renege. Note: It's unclear whether when you took the bid that you score your bid as if the renege hadn't occured or if you lose the bid as well, though we played at home to lose the bid as well. The bid is a point value. You bid to take that many points or more. Losing the bid means that you subtract the value you bid from your score, not the difference that you fell short. Hearts: http://w3.one.net/~dbarker/cards/hearts.html Revoke: If a player fails to follow suit when able, there is no penalty if he corrects his error before the trick is completed. If a revoke is not corrected in time, and is discovered before the deal has been scored, the offender is charged for all the hearts in that deal and no other player scores any penalty points. Note: all the hearts is half the points on a deal. Being charged for all the hearts does not allow one to shoot the moon. Cribbage: http://www.geop.ubc.ca/~bzelt/crib/RULES/rules.html RULE #31. Should a player neglect to play when he could have "come in" under 31, his opponent may score 2 points. Of course duplicate bridge in its most recent incarnations is unique among card games with the idea of equity. In each of the other games, the penalty for a renege exceeds possible gain (though there are some freakish cases in Cribbage that gain more that 2). My main problem with the equity factor in bridge's revoke laws is that you're more likely to get an equitable ruling (relative to your expected result) the more disasterous your revoke is to your opponent. Revoke and give your opponent an extra trick by doing so and then suffer an additional 1-2 trick penalty for 2-3 tricks off expectation. Revoke and gain two or more tricks in the process, and your score will be no different from your expected score before revoking. It seems that the more innocuous the revoke the more of a penalty you pay when you consider that penalty is the difference from your expected score, not the number of tricks you relinquish. (still more below) >From: Richard Bley >Roger Pewick wrote: >>Hirsch wrote: >>| against a revoke). We must rule something (85B), and we cannot do so >>| without making a determination of who won the tricks. In making that >>| determination, we can rule that the tricks were taken in a way that >>| favors the NOS (two-trick penalty), or we can rule the tricks were >>| taken in a way that favors the OS (one-trick penalty). I rule in >>| favor of the NOS and move on. >>| > >Great analysis. But IMO wrong conclusion. I don't think that the claimer is entitled to the extra tricks. Declarer is losing the rest of the tricks independently of who holds which outstanding cards. It shouldn't matter that one opponent (in which case a revoke occured) or the other (in which case not) held the outstanding card. The law as written provides a sense of entitlement I don't think should exist, at least not if equity is the goal, though I have a personal preference for something stronger that equity. >>In the case where there is doubt as to which defender takes tricks, to >>rule that a particular defender [the revoker] takes one has the >>characteristic of claiming revoker wins a trick by an unstated line of >>play. The standard provided by L70 is that this doubtful point is ruled >>unfavorably against claimer [in this case conceder] because the revoke >>penalty makes a difference. >That is, what I would have thought either. At least L64C is still in the >background to avoid "inequity" decisions. Of course revoker never gains. But revoker doesn't necessarily lose either. -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 Oct 17 19:06:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9H96FE29066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 19:06:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (mta05-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.45]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9H969t29062 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 19:06:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.16.153]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20001017090604.QGHJ19709.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:06:04 +0100 Message-ID: <002201c03819$d55f3be0$9910ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne.jones1" To: "BLML" References: <01ef01c0380b$48d9c180$c5d536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:08:36 +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: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 8:24 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. > Anne Jones wrote: > >It is a one session multiple teams event of seven teams. > >... There will be six rounds each of 4 boards... > > > >The team that has 5 members wishes to field all 5 during > >the qualifier. It is anticipated that the 5th member will > >replace one of the others at some point during the evening. > >Player 5 will not be present until such time as he replaces > >another, and this is to be done between rounds. Player 5 tells > >you - the TD- at the beginning of the event that this is planned. > > > "Player 5" is a 'player', i.e. a member of a team. I find it > almost incomprehensible that some people seem to > describe him as a substitute. Does a SO really have to > define that a substitute is someone who isn't in the team? > > Perhaps I'm wrong. I just glanced at the (online) NSWBA > Tournament Regulations which govern bridge played in > Sydney. They include these definitions: > +>>>"Terminology > +>>> Unit means the original team, pair or individual, but > +>>> includes augmented players (in the case of teams > +>>> events), and players who become permanent (see > +>>> clause 4.5.5). For a teams event, a unit shall consist > +>>> of four, five or six members. For a pairs event, a unit > +>>> shall consist of two members. > +>>> Substitute means a non-unit player who represents > +>>> that unit for one session or a part thereof. > +>>> Substitution means the replacement of a non-unit > +>>> member by a substitute for one session or a part thereof." > > Come to think of it, I recall being on the Committee which > wrote those rules, many years ago. What a cruel twist of fate. > > >You have to guide you the Law book, and a set of > >regulations, the pertinent ones being as follows.:- > > > Law 4 says in part: > "In ... teams events, the contestants enter as ... teams and > retain the same partnerships throughout a session (except > in the case of substitutes authorised by the Director)." > > Of course it could technically be pointed out that a > partnership can by definition consist of three people, > but we won't do that because it might be considered petty. > > Chapter 1 of the Laws (Definitions section) says: > "Session: An extended period of play during which a number > of boards, specified by the SO, is scheduled to be played." > > Anne quotes no SO rule about the length of a session > so there presumably is no such rule in her region. > White Book defines a session in terms of the Correction period. 79.12.2. Multiple Teams, Pairs and Individual competitions. In all these competitions a session ends when the programme provides an interval of at least 30mins before the resumption of play and a score to that stage is calculated. The score is available when posted for inspection by the players. > 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 Oct 17 19:36:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9H9a1I29086 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 19:36:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (mta02-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.42]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9H9Ztt29082 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 19:35:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.16.153]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20001017103433.ZEYZ23965.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:34:33 +0000 Message-ID: <004401c0381d$fed5b7c0$9910ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne.jones1" To: "BLML" References: <006d01c037ab$c664bd40$de033dd4@default> Subject: Re: [BLML] Obligation to double after partners psychic bid? Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:38:23 +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: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 1:39 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Obligation to double after partners psychic bid? > Ben Schelen wrote: > > > Pairs contest, experienced pairs for years, regional top level > > B12 J 7 4 > N/S Q 10 8 3 > D:W 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 2H pass 4H > ? > > Established facts: > > CC EW: third hand bid can be light ( not more than that), > BSC and HUM are not permitted (Law 40D), > East explained to the TD summoned that he intentionally has given a > psychic bid, > It is known that East has a certain style and has lately done the same > with 5 points. > > Question: > > Is west OBLIGED to double 4H taking into account that west did not show > values in the second round of the auction? > > Reason why: > > In 1981 members of the International Bridge Press Association were asked > what they would call with a given hand in a given auction. Herman > Filarski answered: "I MUST double in the case that my partner has given > a psychic bid. Herman had a correct feeling because "his partner " had > given a psychic bid. > > In the Code of Practice is written under Disclosure of psychic > tendencies: > > A partnership may not defend itself against an allegation that its > psychic action is based upon an understanding by claiming that, although > the partner had an awareness of the possibility of a psychic in the > given situation, the partner's actions subsequent to the psychic have > been entirely normal. The opponents are entitled to an equal and timely > awareness of any agreement, explicit or implicit, since it may affect > their choice of action and for this reason the understanding must be > disclosed. > > Awaiting your reactions, > A normal bid of 1NT opp 1D doubled might be expected.Why did West pass the double of 1D? System please? If the sys allows a Pass by West then so be it.I am not hapy with this. I believe most human beings would pass 4H. A psyche has now been exposed. Anne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 17 19:42:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9H9geA29103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 19:42:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9H9gXt29099 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 19:42:34 +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 LAA20582; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 11:40:40 +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 LAA01075; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 11:42:20 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001017115246.008c5260@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 11:52:46 +0200 To: "Ben Schelen" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Obligation to double after partners psychic bid? In-Reply-To: <006d01c037ab$c664bd40$de033dd4@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 21:59 16/10/00 +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 2H pass 4H East explained to >the TD summoned that he intentionally has given a psychic bid, It is known >that East has a certain style and has lately done the same with 5 points. >Question: Is west OBLIGED to double 4H taking into account that west did >not show values in the second round of the auction? AG : I think one can't compel West to double. If East had held 6 solid diamonds and the spade queen, it is quite possible that 4H be laydown, especially after West is so kind as to tell he has trump opposition. So, doubling 4H isn't a LA in a good-level game (but perhaps 1NT on the 1st round was, and I'd focalize on that). 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 Oct 17 21:00:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9HAxkb29153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 20:59:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tantalum.btinternet.com (tantalum.btinternet.com [194.73.73.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9HAxdt29149 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 20:59:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.145.44] (helo=D457300) by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13lUSH-0007Ra-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 11:58:50 +0100 Message-ID: <003301c03829$11ee0500$2c9101d5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: "BLML" References: <001101c03714$c177c760$1b10ff3e@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 11:56:57 +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 Anne Jones wrote: > It is a one session multiple teams event of seven teams. Well, if it really is a "one-session" event, it seems to me that there is no problem here. A team cannot change its personnel, nor its partnerships, during the session (which is to say, during the event), because Law 4 says that it cannot. However: > It is a qualifier for a final to be played at a later date. There will be six rounds each of 4 boards. It would in these circumstances be possible for the SO to decide that each round constitutes a separate "session" for the purpose of permitting changes of line-up. It would not, in my view, be entirely satisfactory for the TD, acting on behalf of the SO, to make this decision once the event has started, though I do not think it would be illegal unless it overrode some previously published Conditions of Contest. > One team is a team of 5, and all others are teams of 4. All members of all > teams are declared before the event. At that time, it might have been wise for the TD to make a decision as to what would in fact constitute a "session". It appears from Anne's opening sentence that there had been some determination that this was a "one-session" event, though it is possible that the impact of this had not been properly considered. > The team that has 5 members wishes to field all 5 during the qualifier. It > is anticipated that the 5th member will replace one of the others at some > point during the evening. Player 5 will not be present until such time as he > replaces another, and this is to be done between rounds. Player 5 tells > you - the TD- at the beginning of the event that this is planned. In that case, I would have had to determine that each round constituted a session for the purposes of Law 4 (or that it did not, in which case one of the five might as well go home). Provided that I had made this determination and informed all the players, I see no difficulty with the replacement (I avoid the word "substitution") that took place. Even if I had forgotten to inform all the players, I would still consider it correct to apologise to the aggrieved team for not doing this in advance, then tell them to shut up and get on with it. > You have to guide you the Law book Well, Law 4 appears to me clear enough on the matter. > and a set of regulations, the pertinent > ones being as follows.:- > > White Book 80.23 > Additional Players in Teams Events. > Any specific tournament regulations take precedence over the following. > In Teams of four events each team is entitled to have up to six members. > If only four or five are registered at the time of the original entry, > additional members may be registered later before the commencement of play > subject to the approval of the sponsoring organisation. > > After play has begun, additional players may still be registered up to the > half way stage of the competition subject to the approval of the sponsoring > organisation and provided that they have not previously been registered in > another team which has participated in the competition. There is no doubt that the fifth player is a legitimate member of the team, and can play in the final if his team qualifies. The question is only whether or not he can join this "one-session" qualifying event in between rounds. Unless there is some determination that a round is a session for the purposes of Law 4, then I do not believe that the fifth player can join the event after it has begun. > In addition to the above the TD may authorise one substitute player for up > to four boards provided that : > > the TD considers the reason to be valid; > the substitution is not substantially detrimental to > the other contestants. > the substitute has not previously been registered in the > competition other than as a substitute in another team. I do not think that this applies. The words "in addition to the above" appear to me to indicate that this regulation permits the substitution of team members by non-members, subject to certain conditions. It does not have anything to do with the replacement of a team member by another team member. > The TD may make emergency substitutions when necessary to facilitate the > smooth running of the event, subject to the substitution not being > substantially detrimental to the other contestants. A team disqualified > through this subsection should be notified at the earliest opportunity. Again, this does not seem to me relevant to the case in question. > A player may also apply in advance to the sponsoring organisation for such > permission,or for special consideration. I confess that this does not seem to me relevant to anything at all, and I have no idea what it means. > When player 5 returns to the playing area, and requests permission to sit, a > member of another team objects. > Player 5 is the strongest player of his team, and is stronger than any other > player in the field. > > > How do you rule:- > If a) there are still 3 rounds to play? > b) if there is just one round left to play? I do not think, for the reasons I have given, that the number of rounds remaining is important - we are not dealing here with a substitution. The question is simply: can a team member replace another team member at point X, which would be permitted only if point X occurred between "sessions". Now, John Probst wrote: >If the CoC permits a fifth and or sixth player and an exchange during a session then the "session" ends for the fourth player when he leaves (he has finished, he has left) and it starts for the fifth player (he has arrived and started to play). Since the partnership is new these "sessions" apply to the pair in question not just the player. I have no problem with this interpretation. >A session of bridge is one where I sit and play, essentially, without interruption. It doesn't have to consist of all the boards available for me to play. ...but this is simply nonsense; a "session" is (per the Definitions in the Laws) what the SO says it is, not what an individual player says it is. The Conditions of Contest cannot, in truth, permit "an exchange during a session", for this is contrary to Law. All the CoC can do is to stipulate that certain points constitute the end of a session for the purpose of permitting changes of line-up. Then, at those points and those points only, such changes may take place. It may be of interest to note that in an English inter-county event called the Tollemache, the playing sessions usually contain two or more rounds of six, seven or eight boards, after which a number of matches have been completed and there is an interval for getting the scoring wrong (since it is a teams of eight event and no one ever has any idea how to score those). However, teams may change their line-up between one round and another, because the Conditions of Contest state that each round is considered a "session" for this purpose (just as each match is a "session" in a Swiss teams event, even though a playing session may consist of three or four matches). In the actual case, I would have no difficulty with the notion that the TD should determine that the event is actually one of six "sessions" for the purposes of Law 4. It should be made clear to the players that this is what is happening, so that they will not have any grounds for complaint when replacements take place at legal times. If this determination is made on the fly, as it were, then I would still have no problem with it unless it had been previously stipulated in some published CoC that this was in fact, as Anne began her message by saying, a "one-session" event. I venture to suggest that the problem is not likely to recur - at least, not in Wales. 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 Oct 17 21:47:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9HBlN429259 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 21:47:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9HBlIt29255 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 21:47:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ha232941 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 21:47:06 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-225-38.tmns.net.au ([203.54.225.38]) by mail5.bigpond.com (Claudes-Spontaneous-MailRouter V2.9c 9/6890012); 17 Oct 2000 21:47:05 Message-ID: <00e401c03838$55423420$dfd636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Obligation to double after partners psychic bid? Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 22:46:13 +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 Ben Schelen wrote: Is west OBLIGED to double 4H taking into account that West did not show values in the second round of the auction? I wouldn't dream of doubling. Light third seat openings are so normal nowadays (e.g partner having DAKJxx(x) and little else) that the most likely effect of doubling would be to give declarer his 10th trick by allowing him to guess HJ correctly. As discussed in your earlier thread, Pass is a fairly normal alternative to 1NT in most parts of the world, especially opposite a third seat opener. 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 Oct 17 21:50:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9HBo4v29277 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 21:50:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9HBnvt29273 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 21:49:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id NAA08234 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 13:49:53 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Oct 17 13:51:03 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 <01JVG2CZLCS0000VKS@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 13:48:58 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 13:45:40 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 13:48:54 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Teams of Four. To: "'David Burn'" , BLML Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6CD@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 > > Anne Jones wrote: > > > It is a one session multiple teams event of seven teams. > > Well, if it really is a "one-session" event, it seems to me that there > is no problem here. A team cannot change its personnel, nor its > partnerships, during the session (which is to say, during the event), > because Law 4 says that it cannot. > There is one aspect I didn't see mentioned. It does not make much sense to explicitly allow teams of 6 (5,4) when numbers 5 and 6 are not allowed to play at all. Which for me means that the TD, if the S.O. didn't do so, has to define the session in such a way that play becomes possible for any of the 5 team members in a comparable way. If the session is defined as the time period for play of 7 rounds a court in the USA probably will establish damage worth a couple of millions. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 17 22:03:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9HC36n29348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 22:03:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9HC32t29344 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 22:03:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ca233560 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 21:59:55 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-225-38.tmns.net.au ([203.54.225.38]) by mail5.bigpond.com (Claudes-Little-MailRouter V2.9c 9/6894762); 17 Oct 2000 21:59:54 Message-ID: <00e501c0383a$1f6d76a0$dfd636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 22:59:44 +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: >>>Player 5 will not be present until such time as he replaces >>>another, and this is to be done between rounds. Player 5 tells >>>you - the TD- at the beginning of the event that this is planned I wonder if the TD automatically replied "OK". I suspect that in my innocence that's what I would have done. Peter Gill wrote: >> Law 4 says in part: >> "In ... teams events, the contestants enter as ... teams and >> retain the same partnerships throughout a session (except >> in the case of substitutes authorised by the Director)." >> >> Chapter 1 of the Laws (Definitions section) says: >> "Session: An extended period of play during which a number >> of boards, specified by the SO, is scheduled to be played." >> >> Anne quotes no SO rule about the length of a session >> so there presumably is no such rule in her region. >> Anne Jones replied: >White Book defines a session in terms of the Correction period. >79.12.2. Multiple Teams, Pairs and Individual competitions. >In all these competitions a session ends when the programme >provides an interval of at least 30mins before the resumption >of play and a score to that stage is calculated. The score is >available when posted for inspection by the players. Sounds to me like Player 5 wanted to start play in the middle of a session, so we move on to the part of Law 4 which is in brackets. If there is no SO definition of "substitute" in Anne's region then I suppose a slightly warped interpretation of that word by the TD is possible, allowing the bracketed part of Law 4 to take effect. I don't like it much though. In Sydney where "substitute" is defined in the Regulations in such a way that Player 5 would not be a substitute, a TD here could instead define "session" in an appropriate manner because the SO has not defined "session". If both session and substitute are defined bt the SO, the TD could have legitimate problems allowing the player to play. We're getting into murky waters here. Say that there was a three way tie for first at the end of an event, with or without a 30 minute break after play finishes due to an appeal. Are the three (say) 5-board tie-break matches a new session? Can a team of five or six field different line-ups for the different tie-break matches? I know my example is not well thought-through but the point is clear. There seem to be problems with the Law becoming involved in the do's and don't's of when Teams of 5 or 6 can change partnerships (pardon my grammar). 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 Tue Oct 17 22:05:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9HC5Rr29361 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 22:05:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9HC5Kt29356 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 22:05:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-105.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.105]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA17686; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 14:05:11 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39EACA28.54A2D3E7@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 11:28:08 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Todd Zimnoch , Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke 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 to me in private, to correct my use of the English. Thanks for doing that in private, but I believe his remark is unobtrusive, so I am willing to share it with you. Anyway, he made a second remark, and I think my response is of general intrest. So I've decided to add blml to the addressees. > > >From: Herman De Wael > >Which begs one last question : > > > >Can [L12 tricks] be transferred ? > > Sorry, I'm on a crusade about this particular phrase and I still wonder > how it came into such popular misuse. "To beg the question" is to avoid > answering it, not to beg that it be asked. > Thanks Todd, as you say a popular misuse. I did not know it was a misuse. I'll use "prompt another question" in future. > > In anycase, what L12 tricks? L12 does nothing with tricks. > Well, I was being a bit sarcastic. Since there are apparently 4 types of tricks, we are asking if all of these can be transferred. And in one sense at least, L12 does give tricks. If we change 4Sp= to 4Sp+2, that can be construed as "giving extra tricks". Cases could be constructed. Suppose I am playing 4Sp, and I have made 10 tricks. Now I play the 11th from the table, and I revoke, while opponents make the trick. Opponent returns a suit and I ask about the bidding, trying to decide which card to put (say from AQ). However, there has been misinformation adn I decide wrong. I have now made 10 tricks, and have a revoke that goes unpunished. I ask for a MI ruling and the TD decided that with correct information I would have made the last two tricks. I should now get 4Sp+2, but I have now made a revoke with at least one subsequent trick. Should I not be getting +450 now ? So we have transferred a [L12 trick] ! -- 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 Oct 17 22:05:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9HC5cq29373 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 22:05:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9HC5Rt29362 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 22:05:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-105.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.105]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA17849 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 14:05:23 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39EAD4EA.7842D3AC@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 12:14:02 +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] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke References: <3.0.1.32.20001011215632.0121528c@pop.mindspring.com> <015d01c03397$05a74360$71b6f1c3@kooijman> <3.0.1.32.20001011215632.0121528c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001013163335.01218750@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001015133232.01226064@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: > > > I'm not sure I completely understand your hypothetical case here, but I > would like to respond to the general philosophical approach, which is one > that has been suggested by others. It is the notion that we should base our > interpretation of the Laws upon our judgement about how various > interpretations of those Laws would affect the behavior of players. Adam > has argued that if my approach is adopted, players will cease to > claim/concede because of it, and you appear to be making the same point. > David Stevenson provided a thoughtful example, the point of which seemed to > be that under my interpretation, declarers would be motivated to stage > elaborate maneuvers (in his case, an unblocking revoke) for the purpose of > ending up with exactly as many tricks as they would be entitled to without > resorting to such strategems. > Mike, We are not basing our assumptions on what the players would do. We are just basing our assumptions (which are not stand-alone, but backed by at least one possible interpretation of the actual wording) on what the result of your interpretation would be. Your interpretation is the one that makes playing on better than claiming. At least in 99% of the cases in which there is a difference. Since that cannot have been the aim of the lawmakers, we conclude that the aim of the lawmakers was that our interpretation is correct. > In the first place, as I said to Adam, I am skeptical. AFAIK, this is an > extremely rare problem, and the Cassandra-like predictions of doom that > would follow from reading the language of L64A2 as I suggest are, I > believe, wildly overdrawn. Sorry Mike, but then you have an absolutely false idea of the problem. This is on the contrary a very common problem. Claiming and only then discovering that there has been a revoke must be quite common. The rarety of the problem arises only when the claim can be played out in several ways, and if some of those ways lead to different revoke rulings than others. That is a rare problem, and if that is all that your interpretation affects, then we can be allowed to discuss this. But the more common occurence of there not being a problem as to which cards will make which tricks after the claim, is also affected by your interpretation. OK, try this one : AKxx xxxxx these are trumps, and declarer draws two rounds. On the second round, one declarer does not follow suit. In the end, declarer concedes the high trump. Do you really believe that this revoke should not be punished by two tricks ? Are you in any doubt that the high trump would make a trick ? Are you really happy with the consequence of your interpretation, which is that a declarer who plays out all 13 tricks should get more than one who concedes at some earlier stage ? > But the main point is that these types of > considerations have no proper place in the _application_ of the Laws. They > are perfectly appropriate issues to be considered in writing the Laws, but > not in parsing the written text for its meaning. If the WBFLC, in its > wisdom, decides that 64A2 should be amended to explicitly include unplayed > cards, then that will unquestionably be the law. Why should they write such a thing, when the whole world, minus you, already accept that this is the case ? > I would expect that any > such change would be accompanied by some instruction as to how the unplayed > cards are to be assigned to the unplayed tricks, and that this formulation > would be guided by an appreciation for the added burden placed upon the TD > in what is supposed to be, after all, a relatively cut-and-dried procedure. > Indeed some clarification can be needed. But only for the extremely rare instances where it does make a difference. And in fact, that clarification is already in place : rule in favour of the non-revokers. > 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/ -- 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 Oct 17 22:05:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9HC5hq29377 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 22:05:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9HC5Ut29364 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 22:05:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-105.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.105]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA17867 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 14:05:26 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39EAD699.415A3AB7@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 12:21:13 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. References: <001101c03714$c177c760$1b10ff3e@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Have I read correctly ? "anne.jones1" wrote: > > It is a one session multiple teams event of seven teams. It is a qualifier > for a final to be played at a later date. There will be six rounds each of 4 > boards > > > One team is a team of 5, and all others are teams of 4. All members of all > teams are declared before the event. > > > The team that has 5 members wishes to field all 5 during the qualifier. It > is anticipated that the 5th member will replace one of the others at some > point during the evening. Player 5 will not be present until such time as he > replaces another, and this is to be done between rounds. Player 5 tells > you - the TD- at the beginning of the event that this is planned. > > So this team has registered this player at the start ? Then what is the problem ? > You have to guide you the Law book, and a set of regulations, the pertinent > ones being as follows.:- > > White Book 80.23 > Additional Players in Teams Events. > Any specific tournament regulations take precedence over the following. > In Teams of four events each team is entitled to have up to six members. > If only four or five are registered at the time of the original entry, > additional members may be registered later before the commencement of play > subject to the approval of the sponsoring organisation. > Not of application. Five players were registered, weren't they ? > > > How do you rule:- > If a) there are still 3 rounds to play? > b) if there is just one round left to play? > > Since 5 players were registered, 5 players can play. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 17 22:56:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9HCuCP29429 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 22:56:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9HCu3t29425 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 22:56:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.0.ap (guppy)) id OAA11081; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 14:54:11 +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 OAA22725; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 14:55:51 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001017150618.008c0780@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 15:06:18 +0200 To: "Peter Gill" , "BLML" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Obligation to double after partners psychic bid? In-Reply-To: <00e401c03838$55423420$dfd636cb@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 22:46 17/10/00 +1000, Peter Gill wrote: >Ben Schelen wrote: >Is west OBLIGED to double 4H taking into account that >West did not show values in the second round of the auction? > >I wouldn't dream of doubling. Light third seat openings are >so normal nowadays (e.g partner having DAKJxx(x) and little >else) that the most likely effect of doubling would be to give >declarer his 10th trick by allowing him to guess HJ correctly. > >As discussed in your earlier thread, Pass is a fairly normal >alternative to 1NT in most parts of the world, especially >opposite a third seat opener. > AG : yes, to be sure, but this is not the standard for 'fielding psyche' actions : the question is rather 'is 1NT a logical alternative to pass ?', to which the answer is 'yes' AFAIAC-BTAICBW, unless E/W's system specifically states so (and if it does, this could be the sign that they psyche a little bit too often). To the contrary, there is no LA to pass over 4H. In such a case, you have the right to believe the opponents when they tell you they have enough distribution and/or strength to make 4H a good contract. 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 Oct 18 01:02:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9HF1T229577 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 01:01:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9HF1Dt29557 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 01:01:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13lYEl-000M5i-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 16:01:10 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 11:22:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] sympathy (was concession) References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6C7@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6C7@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 (ton) said (discussing a claim after a revoke by opponents): > >> >Now a to be considered constructive contribution. Not >> knowing what would >> >have happened if play had continued why do we not apply 12c3 >> now it is >> >available for TD's? > >on which David S. replied: > >> Because this is not assigning a score. > >What do you mean with that? TD is called and has to decide how many tricks >declarer (and opponents) get. Isn't he assigning a score then? OK. Spoke too fast. He is not assigning a score in place of one obtained at the table which is where L12C2 comes in, and L12C3 comes in when L12C2 applies. Deciding how many tricks is giving a ruling, but it is not assigning a score is place of one obtained at a table so neither L12C2 nor L12C3 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 Wed Oct 18 01:02:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9HF1Sl29574 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 01:01:28 +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-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 e9HF1Dt29556 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 01:01:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13lYEl-000M5e-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 16:01:09 +0100 Message-ID: <$5JhuAA2VC75EwA4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 11:09:58 +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: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch wrote: >>From: David Stevenson >> I have no idea what you are talking about, but since you presumably >>know, I shall just state the obvious, and you can tell me where i went >>wrong. >> >> A revoke at T12 must be corrected under L62D1 [or if too late for >>that, under L64C a trick won by hte revoke is returned] so no-one gains >>from a T12 revoke. However, there is no penalty as L64B6 explains. > > The transfer of that trick is part of the penalty. Why are you >returning the trick under 64C when 64B6 says not to? L64B6 says there is no penalty for an established revoke at such a time and I have given no penalty. L64C refers to revokes not subject to penalty so it obviously can apply to those not subject to penalty. -- 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 Oct 18 01:02:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9HF1Zi29580 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 01:01:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9HF1Nt29572 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 01:01:24 +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 13lYEl-000M5h-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 16:01:17 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 11:18:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. References: <001101c03714$c177c760$1b10ff3e@vnmvhhid> <001101c03748$59cdb3c0$b35908c3@dodona> <003c01c0380c$7413edc0$bf5408c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <003c01c0380c$7413edc0$bf5408c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > >Grattan Endicott >"A public-opinion poll is no substitute for thought." > - Warren Buffett > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: John (MadDog) Probst >To: >Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 3:55 AM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. > > >> In article , David Stevenson >> writes >> >> snip, 5th player halfway through session >> > >> > OK, Grattan, but how do you apply L4? I shall tell you that in >this >> >case it has already been discussed by Anne and myself, and we did >read >> >L4, but we are not in agreement as to its effect in this case. >> > >> If the CoC permits a fifth and or sixth player and an exchange >during a >> session then the "session" ends for the fourth player when he >leaves (he >> has finished, he has left) and it starts for the fifth player (he >has >> arrived and started to play). Since the partnership is new these >> "sessions" apply to the pair in question not just the player. I >have no >> problem with this interpretation. >> >> A session of bridge is one where I sit and play, essentially, >without >> interruption. It doesn't have to consist of all the boards >available for >> me to play. >> >> Of course we can't have one of the NS players switching to EW >because >> that would be no longer a "same" partnership, but we can have >"new" >> partnerships. >> -- >+=+ Perhaps Law 4 is expressed too simply. With the >exception of substitutions authorized by the Director >*the same* partnerships are retained in play for the >whole of a session. The SO, or by default the >Director, specifies what is a 'session' and thus what >is the point at which the partnerships may be >changed. Ally these restrictions to the principle >that specific authorization in law or regulation is >required for an action and I do not see where there >can be a gap through which a team can seek to >drive a coach and horses. Absence of prohibition >does not permit, and this is a clear case where >the reason for that fail-safe provision is evident. >A 'new' or a 'changed' partnership can only enter >the play between one session and the next. > The Director has full discretion to allow a >substitution; the SO will normally guide him on >the policy for this, but in general it is poor >direction if the Director does not require >substantial cause before allowing the basic >condition at which the law aims to be overturned. What you say is correct, of course, but still seems totally irrelevant. Of course no-one is trying to overturn a law - why should they? -- 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 Oct 18 01:02:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9HF1WA29578 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 01:01:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9HF1Ft29558 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 01:01:16 +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 13lYEl-000M5g-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 16:01:11 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 11:14:38 +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: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch wrote: > Of course revoker never gains. But revoker doesn't necessarily lose >either. That is certainly a well-known principle of revoke penalties. Nothing wrong with it as a principle. -- 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 Oct 18 01:02:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9HF1YE29579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 01:01:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9HF1Dt29555 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 01:01:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13lYEl-000M5f-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 16:01:08 +0100 Message-ID: <8Zwh2GAQXC75EwDn@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 11:11:28 +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: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch wrote: >>From: David Stevenson >> I have no idea what you are talking about, but since you presumably >>know, I shall just state the obvious, and you can tell me where i went >>wrong. >> >> A revoke at T12 must be corrected under L62D1 [or if too late for >>that, under L64C a trick won by hte revoke is returned] so no-one gains >>from a T12 revoke. However, there is no penalty as L64B6 explains. > > The transfer of the trick won is part of the penalty. Why return it >under 64C when 64B6 say not to? I appreciate the sentiment that a >revoke on trick 12 is so easy to correct that we can correct it without >applying any penalty. However that's inconsistent with the way revokes >on tricks 1 through 11 are dealt with which may or may not be as easy to >correct. The inconsistency or otherwise affects whether the Law is correct. I rule as the law book says. -- 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 Oct 18 01:14:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9HFDuK29633 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 01:13:56 +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 e9HFDot29629 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 01:13:51 +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 LAA06240 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 11:13:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA17742 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 11:13:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 11:13:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200010171513.LAA17742@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Peter Gill" > Footnote: when I run School games, I sometimes write into > the Regulations the Interchange Rule (IR) in order to facilitate > threesomes and/or teams of five. L80E. Some people may quibble, but I don't think they can stop you short of official notice from your NA. (And no such notice will ever be forthcoming if your NA has any sense at all.) > Some of you might think I'm mad, but promoting fun aspects of > bridge to kids seems to work, and it's much more popular than > forcing leftover kids to play with "oldies". I love it! -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 18 01:22:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9HFMNk29673 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 01:22:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9HFMHt29669 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 01:22:18 +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 IAA05686; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 08:22:10 -0700 Message-Id: <200010171522.IAA05686@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Obligation to double after partners psychic bid? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 16 Oct 2000 17:10:42 PDT." <200010162110.RAA10797@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 08:22:09 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > I'm not sure what rules are in force in the Netherlands or what the EW > methods are, but West's _second_ pass looks suspicious to me. Wouldn't > 1NT be normal (with T62 AJ5 J76 Q652)? Pass wouldn't have occurred to > me, but maybe this pair has special methods. I think I'd bid 1NT, but passing doesn't seem out of line. I suspect some players might pass due to the lack of spade stopper; and for other players, 1NT here would show more than a minimum response (about 8-10 HCP), and this hand is borderline for that kind of response. In other words, I don't think 1NT is mandatory in Standard American. Just MHO, -- 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 Oct 18 02:20:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9HGJZd29707 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 02:19:35 +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 e9HGJTt29703 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 02:19:30 +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 MAA09251 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 12:19:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA17869 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 12:19:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 12:19:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200010171619.MAA17869@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] "begging the question" X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > Todd Zimnoch wrote to me in private, to correct my use of > the English. > > Sorry, I'm on a crusade about this particular phrase and I still wonder > > how it came into such popular misuse. "To beg the question" is to avoid > > answering it, not to beg that it be asked. Quoting Fowler _Modern English Usage_ under "Misapprehensions:" That to beg a question is to avoid giving a straight answer to one. (In other words, Fowler is saying that the above meaning is a common misapprehension.) Under "Petitio Principii" he gives the correct meaning: _Petitio principii_ or 'begging the question'. The fallacy of founding a conclusion on a basis that as much needs to be proved as the conclusion itself. *Arguing in a circle* is a common variety of p.p.; other (not circular) examples are that capital punishment is necessary because without it murders would increase, and that democracy must be the best form of government because the majority are always right. No doubt we can all produce numerous examples of begging the question from BLML itself. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 18 02:32:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9HGW2329723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 02:32:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9HGVut29719 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 02:31:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:29:23 -0700 Message-ID: <01de01c03857$86b39480$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <01b401c037fd$b104a8a0$c5d536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] official scorer Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:24:56 -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: > By the way, one Sydney club has made South rather than > North primarily responsible for scoring, partly so that at the > end of Round 1, it's easy to avoid recording the EW hands > on the scoresheet back to front. Afternoon club games in these parts commonly have *both* North and South doing the scoring! When pickup slips first came into use, the afternoon players objected to the loss of their beloved traveling score sheets. Club owners solved that problem by having North score on pickup slips and South on travelers. The travelers are discarded, of course, after Souths have carefully entered all data pertaining to the final board on the last round of play. 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 Oct 18 03:10:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9HHAWR29774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 03:10:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9HHAQt29770 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 03:10:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:07:53 -0700 Message-ID: <01df01c0385c$e64b11c0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6C6@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: authority (was Scoring Q) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:08:35 -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 > > > > Ton Kooijman wrote: > > > > In reply to my: > > > >> > > > > >> I disagree. Let Ton Kooijman of the WBFLC give his opinion. I > > think > > > >> you will find he agrees with me. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know what to agree with? Can anybody help me with giving me > > a simple > > > statement to be approved? > > > > > I thought it was obvious. > > > > Statement to be approved: (okay, two statements) > > > > The WBF Bylaws give the WBFLC, and no other LC, the responsibility for > > interpreting the Laws. > > As far as it seemed obvious I answered already. Let me repeat; > The WBF bylaws do not say that no other LC may interpret the laws. But you > can predict the problem if other LC start to interpret. > > > > > > Interpretations made by any other LC are tentative only, since they > > are subject to the approval of the WBFLC. > > This is kind of an interpretation itself. Who am I to forbid you to make it? > Other interpetations are not subject to the approval of the WBFLC (I > couldn't read anything about that in our bylaws). I you want to say that > interpretations of the laws by others than the WBFLC can not have the status > of jurisprudence etc. within the WBF I am willing to agree with you. Which > leaves the question whether bridge played within the jurisdiction of a zone > or NBO is automatically played within the jurisdiction of the WBF as well. > If I had to advise the WBF counsil my advise would be not to demand that. > But we might already have regulations saying that this is the case. Don't > put too much effort in finding that. > Rather than argue these fine points, I'll cite as an analogy the American judicial system (from an ignorant layman's viewpoint). Laws are interpreted by policemen, municipal court judges, superior court judges, and on up the line to Justices of the Supreme Court. All interpretations other than those of the Supreme Court are subject to acceptance or rejection by the next higher authority. Everyone is careful not to apply a law in a way that conflicts with the interpretations of higher authority, but there are sometimes marginal issues that must be passed upwards for resolution. Whatever the Supreme Court decides must be accepted by all. The process leaves plenty of room for local variations in the way laws are implemented (e.g., the dealth penalty), as long as the letter of the law (or its obvious intent) is not violated. There are other schemes possible for a judicial system, some of which may provide local areas with the right to have their own set of laws, or interpretations of laws, as they see fit. We had a civil war here over this matter, with southern states asserting their right to have that sort of autonomy. "States Rights" advocates still have a problem with the notion of centralized authority, but the dividing line between the two has become fairly well established, with laws of the states clearly subordinate to those of the nation. I believe we have a better nation because the North won that war, and that the game of bridge will be better off if there is one set of rules, centrally controlled, with only minor variations in the way they are implemented. 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 Oct 18 03:19:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9HHJYk29793 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 03:19:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9HHJUt29789 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 03:19:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id za397201 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 03:17:27 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-003-p-213-184.tmns.net.au ([203.54.213.184]) by mail4.bigpond.com (Claudes-Metric-MailRouter V2.9c 7/7551201); 18 Oct 2000 03:17:25 Message-ID: <010901c03866$724de0e0$52df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Obligation to double after partners psychic bid? Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 04:13:09 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: >>I wouldn't dream of doubling. Light third seat openings are >>so normal nowadays (e.g partner having DAKJxx(x) and little >>else) that the most likely effect of doubling would be to give >>declarer his 10th trick by allowing him to guess HJ correctly. >> >>As discussed in your earlier thread, Pass is a fairly normal >>alternative to 1NT in most parts of the world, especially >>opposite a third seat opener. >> Alain Gottcheiner replied: >yes, to be sure, but this is not the standard for 'fielding >psyche' actions : the question is rather 'is 1NT a logical >alternative to pass ?', to which the answer is 'yes' >AFAIAC-BTAICBW, unless E/W's system .... Pardon my limited grasp of the English languge (I plead ignorance, always a safe plea for any Aussie), but what does BTAICBW mean? Seriously. Less seriously, possibilities I've tried are: - by thinking afterwards, I can bid well - be that as it could be w.... I can't find BTAICBW in my dictionary (i.e. the 30/9/2000 edition of Usenet Bridge Abbreviations as published on BLML by DWS), and although it rhymes with LBW, I don't think it's a cricket term. Returning to the topic, I accept that I didn't answer Ben's question about what West is obliged to do. That's because I'm happily not well-informed (due to my heavy usage of the 'delete' key on BLML threads about psyches) about the latest trends in technical legalities regarding psychic activity. My answer was merely intended as an experienced player's comments about the likelihood of West's actions, not as a comment on the legal requirements. Thanks for your explanation; it helps me understand ....The last time that I psyched was in an Individual Championship opposite someone I'd never ever seen before. On the first of our 2 boards I psyched and no doubt she should have been hauled in for fielding the psyche because she chose from amongst LAs after my psyche; this is what should happen if the rules are as you say they are, isn't it? Peter Gill. Postscript: My psyche - last board of the 2000 State Individual Championship - third seat green against red, I held J9876, 103, KJ9, 952. Pass, pass to me, second last board, I need a top or two to have any chance of winning, partner is coming tailed off last and I have never seen her before but she looks about 110 years old. Partner chose successful LA bids after my 1D opening, then perhaps she doubled her sins by successfully choosing a diamond lead from her LA leads. I really think our partnership should be banned by the SO. Ditto two other novel pairs in the same Individual event after their psyches of 1S and 2S on the same hand, with good LA choices thereafter. Perhaps it's just as well that I didn't look at all the "psyche" threads... HF I might even have posted to such threads. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 18 03:23:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9HHNes29814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 03:23:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9HHNRt29806 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 03:23:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13laSO-0000J4-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 17:23:20 +0000 Message-ID: <$13ehRAArI75Ewhf@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 18:22:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. References: <001101c03714$c177c760$1b10ff3e@vnmvhhid> <003301c03829$11ee0500$2c9101d5@D457300> In-Reply-To: <003301c03829$11ee0500$2c9101d5@D457300> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <003301c03829$11ee0500$2c9101d5@D457300>, David Burn writes snip >"sessions". Now, John Probst wrote: > >>If the CoC permits a fifth and or sixth player and an exchange during a >session then the "session" ends for the fourth player when he leaves (he >has finished, he has left) and it starts for the fifth player (he has >arrived and started to play). Since the partnership is new these >"sessions" apply to the pair in question not just the player. I have no >problem with this interpretation. > >>A session of bridge is one where I sit and play, essentially, without >interruption. It doesn't have to consist of all the boards available for >me to play. The point I was trying to make was that, if the CoC permit a team to consist of more than four members then, it is simply nonsense to stop a player playing during a particular phase (in this case the qualifier) of the competition. It is up to the TD to ensure that this player can play, otherwise he is ignoring the CoC. The TD has Law 81 duties as well as Law 4 obligations. If the way of doing this is to say "I shall treat this as a multi- session event for the purposes of Law 4" then he must say "I shall treat this as a multi-session event for the purposes of Law 4". He may also choose to say "I will deem it a change of session at the end of each round" but I don't see why he can't say "I'll deem it a change of session when your 5th player makes it known to me that he is ready to play". As for scoring intervals the TD may decide that he will delay all scoring till all the boards have been played - he'd have no problem (well I wouldn't, but my movements are the subject of derision by Ian and many others) running a movement where a scoring interval *could* take place at virtually any point in the period of play. > >...but this is simply nonsense; a "session" is (per the Definitions in >the Laws) what the SO says it is, not what an individual player says it >is. The Conditions of Contest cannot, in truth, permit "an exchange >during a session", for this is contrary to Law. All the CoC can do is to >stipulate that certain points constitute the end of a session for the >purpose of permitting changes of line-up. Then, at those points and >those points only, such changes may take place. > >It may be of interest to note that in an English inter-county event >called the Tollemache, the playing sessions usually contain two or more >rounds of six, seven or eight boards, after which a number of matches >have been completed and there is an interval for getting the scoring >wrong (since it is a teams of eight event and no one ever has any idea >how to score those). However, teams may change their line-up between one >round and another, because the Conditions of Contest state that each >round is considered a "session" for this purpose (just as each match is >a "session" in a Swiss teams event, even though a playing session may >consist of three or four matches). > >In the actual case, I would have no difficulty with the notion that the >TD should determine that the event is actually one of six "sessions" for >the purposes of Law 4. It should be made clear to the players that this >is what is happening, so that they will not have any grounds for >complaint when replacements take place at legal times. If this >determination is made on the fly, as it were, then I would still have no >problem with it unless it had been previously stipulated in some >published CoC that this was in fact, as Anne began her message by >saying, a "one-session" event. I think the TD must interpret the CoC as best he can and may well choose to accept the term one-session is a shorthand to inform players what sort of timescale they should expect, rather than a formal Law4 definition. >I venture to suggest that the problem is >not likely to recur - at least, not in Wales. > >David Burn >London, England -- 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 Oct 18 03:23:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9HHNVD29810 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 03:23:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9HHNOt29804 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 03:23:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13laSO-0000J3-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 17:23:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 18:12:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6CD@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6CD@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 In article <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6CD@fdwag002s.fd.agro.n l>, Kooijman, A. writes > > >> >> Anne Jones wrote: >> >> > It is a one session multiple teams event of seven teams. >> >> Well, if it really is a "one-session" event, it seems to me that there >> is no problem here. A team cannot change its personnel, nor its >> partnerships, during the session (which is to say, during the event), >> because Law 4 says that it cannot. >> > >There is one aspect I didn't see mentioned. It does not make much sense to >explicitly allow teams of 6 (5,4) when numbers 5 and 6 are not allowed to >play at all. Which for me means that the TD, if the S.O. didn't do so, has >to define the session in such a way that play becomes possible for any of >the 5 team members in a comparable way. If the session is defined as the >time period for play of 7 rounds a court in the USA probably will establish >damage worth a couple of millions. > >ton Thanks ton. I agree it is entirely the TD's problem and he *must* allow the player to play as why else can the team consist of 5 members? Any interpretation which overcomes the problem will do. 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 Wed Oct 18 03:30:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9HHU5k29833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 03:30:05 +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 e9HHU1t29829 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 03:30:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id wa397224 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 03:25:28 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-003-p-213-184.tmns.net.au ([203.54.213.184]) by mail4.bigpond.com (Claudes-Rainy-MailRouter V2.9c 7/7552165); 18 Oct 2000 03:25:28 Message-ID: <012101c03867$92028700$52df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] official scorer Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 04:25:04 +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 Marv French wrote: >Afternoon club games in these parts commonly have >*both* North and South doing the scoring! When pickup >slips first came into use, the afternoon players ... Do club games all around the world use pick up slips instead of travelling scoresheets these days? I just wondered whether Marv's comments are specific to California because down here the clubs still use travellers even when there's a non-playing TD with a computer for scoring. Peter Gill Sydney Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 18 03:46:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9HHkCp29854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 03:46:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9HHk7t29850 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 03:46:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id da397283 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 03:38:44 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-003-p-213-184.tmns.net.au ([203.54.213.184]) by mail4.bigpond.com (Claudes-Magnifico-MailRouter V2.9c 7/7553206); 18 Oct 2000 03:38:44 Message-ID: <013801c03869$6c6bcea0$52df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] "begging the question" Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 04:38:19 +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 >>Todd Zimnoch wrote: >>> I'm on a crusade about this particular phrase and I still wonder >>> how it came into such popular misuse. "To beg the question" >>> is to avoid answering it, not to beg that it be asked. Steve Willner wrote: >Quoting Fowler _Modern English Usage_ under "Misapprehensions:" > That to beg a question is to avoid giving a straight answer to one. > >(In other words, Fowler is saying that the above meaning >is a common misapprehension.) > >Under "Petitio Principii" he gives the correct meaning: > _Petitio principii_ or 'begging the question'. The fallacy of > founding a conclusion on a basis that as much needs to be proved > as the conclusion itself. *Arguing in a circle* is a common variety > of p.p.; other (not circular) examples are that capital punishment is > necessary because without it murders would increase, and that > democracy must be the best form of government because the > majority are always right. > >No doubt we can all produce numerous examples of begging > the question from BLML itself. Confirmed by Chambers Dictionary which says: "Beg: .... to take unwarrantedly for granted (esp. to beg the question: to fall into the fallacy of petitio principii, assuming what is to be proved as part of the would-be proof)". 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 Oct 18 03:49:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9HHnGM29866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 03:49:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9HHn9t29862 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 03:49:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from mom (ip254.southern-pines6.nc.pub-ip.psi.net [38.38.126.254]) by harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3-EL_1_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA29036 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:49:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001e01c03862$64119c00$fe7e2626@mom> Reply-To: "nancy" From: "nancy" To: "BLML" References: <01b401c037fd$b104a8a0$c5d536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <01de01c03857$86b39480$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] official scorer Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 13:47:57 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is what happens here, with both North & South scoring, however, South does the pickup slip and North does the travelers. The pick up slip is the official score, hence the question about who is designated the official scorer. I have always been told it was North but is that correct or is it at the director's, club manager's, or SO's option?? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 12:24 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] official scorer > Peter Gill wrote: > > > By the way, one Sydney club has made South rather than > > North primarily responsible for scoring, partly so that at the > > end of Round 1, it's easy to avoid recording the EW hands > > on the scoresheet back to front. > > Afternoon club games in these parts commonly have *both* North and > South doing the scoring! When pickup slips first came into use, the > afternoon players objected to the loss of their beloved traveling > score sheets. Club owners solved that problem by having North score on > pickup slips and South on travelers. The travelers are discarded, of > course, after Souths have carefully entered all data pertaining to the > final board on the last round of play. > > 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 Oct 18 04:11:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9HIBMG29889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 04:11:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9HIBGt29885 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 04:11:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from mom (ip254.southern-pines6.nc.pub-ip.psi.net [38.38.126.254]) by harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3-EL_1_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA23696 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 11:11:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003f01c03865$7cd28e40$fe7e2626@mom> Reply-To: "nancy" From: "nancy" To: "BLML" References: <012101c03867$92028700$52df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] official scorer Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 14:10:03 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In our clubs, we use both. There is one director that only uses travelers but most of us have found that pickup slips work best as there is less chance of error as they must be signed by east/west and there is more likely to be a scoring error by the director! ( usually in a hurry to get them all entered and sometimes does not check the computer entries.) I have checked and found more scoring errors on the traveler than pickups and would eliminate travelers entirely but the players like to see what other folks are doing. Not that they can be sure from the traveler ;) I get lots of calls re scoring errors on them. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 2:25 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] official scorer > Marv French wrote: > >Afternoon club games in these parts commonly have > >*both* North and South doing the scoring! When pickup > >slips first came into use, the afternoon players ... > > Do club games all around the world use pick up slips > instead of travelling scoresheets these days? I just > wondered whether Marv's comments are specific > to California because down here the clubs still use > travellers even when there's a non-playing TD with > a computer for scoring. > > Peter Gill > Sydney Australia. > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 18 04:51:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9HIomf29910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 04:50:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9HIogt29906 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 04:50:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id OAA15869 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 14:50:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA18057 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 14:50:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 14:50:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200010171850.OAA18057@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > I think the TD must interpret the CoC as best he can and may well choose > to accept the term one-session is a shorthand to inform players what > sort of timescale they should expect, rather than a formal Law4 > definition. BLML has noted before that the Laws use "session" in effectively two ways: the entire period of play (typically an afternoon or evening), and the interval over which scores are calculated (as little as one board in a barometer event). The best suggestion I've seen is that in the 2007 Laws, the word 'stanza' should be used where second meaning is meant. Until that happy day, TD's will just have to do the best they can. It will help if SO's are careful. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 18 06:47:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9HKkdv29958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 06:46:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9HKkWt29954 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 06:46:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcauhng.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.70.240]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA00696 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 16:46:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <004001c0387b$4ca52c80$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "blml" References: <3.0.1.32.20001016174309.0121e5f4@pop.mindspring.com> <002c01c037e3$4ccd4a00$0200000a@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 16:46:17 -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: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 12:52 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Hirsch Davis > To: > Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 9:38 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke > > | > | In the two-card end position we have been discussing (declarer has won > | 11 tricks, one defender has revoked early, declarer concedes after > | taking his 11 winners), suppose that declarer had no choices: > | > > In the case where there is doubt as to which defender takes tricks, to > rule that a particular defender [the revoker] takes one has the > characteristic of claiming revoker wins a trick by an unstated line of > play. The standard provided by L70 is that this doubtful point is ruled > unfavorably against claimer [in this case conceder] because the revoke > penalty makes a difference. > > Roger Pewick > Houston, Texas > Roger, I actually chose my example very carefully. Since Declarer is only conceding after taking his winners, there is no claim involved at all. How does L70 "Contested Claims" apply without a claim? We have a concession, as defined in L68, followed by acquiescence as defined in L69. Since a statement of clarification is only required when there is a claim (68C) there is no reason for a line of play to have been given at all. There are no grounds for applying L71, so the concession must stand. We have a perfectly good concession with acquiescence. We now have to make a L64 ruling on its own merit, without resort to the claim laws, as their requirements have already been satisfied. 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 Oct 18 07:33:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9HLXVS00006 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 07:33:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9HLXOt29998 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 07:33:25 +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 RAA05918 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 17:23:10 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.20001016174309.0121e5f4@pop.mindspring.com> <002c01c037e3$4ccd4a00$0200000a@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 17:20:36 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 "Roger Pewick" >The standard provided by L70 is that this doubtful point is ruled >unfavorably against claimer [in this case conceder] because the revoke >penalty makes a difference. Um. I don't have my FLB in front of me, but it seems to me that if declarer *concedes* the remaining tricks, he's not making a claim, and Law 70 doesn't apply. And no line of play statement, either. Am I wrong? 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/AwUBOezFob2UW3au93vOEQKdkACdEarFzc4wiT/qciLXUAGoU9ZeojgAoN69 cR+zFJNboereLJEwD6bKLMyr =2Txo -----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 Oct 18 07:55:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9HLtCN00031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 07:55:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9HLt5t00026 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 07:55:06 +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 RAA23937 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 17:55:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA18328 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 17:55:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 17:55:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200010172155.RAA18328@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Comment on Maastricht minuted X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >Suppose first that the board is fouled at the table where the -1100 is > >scored. > From: David Stevenson > I think the discussion at the Laws Commission proved that L12A1 works > better. OK with me. > >Suppose instead that the board is successfully transferred to the other > >table, but then [fouled] > Yeah, tough. Life. If you are using 12A1 in the other case, why not when the side with the poor score fouls it at the other table? Unlike L72B1, 12A1 has no requirement that they know they might benefit. Of course 12A1 won't work if it was the caddy or the side with the good score that fouled the board. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 18 07:55:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9HLt7C00027 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 07:55:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9HLt1t00021 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 07:55:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.71.58] (helo=D457300) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13lehE-0006Pv-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 22:54:57 +0100 Message-ID: <002701c03884$ba9158a0$3a47073e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <001101c03714$c177c760$1b10ff3e@vnmvhhid> <39EAD699.415A3AB7@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 22:53:45 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: > Have I read correctly ? I believe so. Whether you have understood correctly is less clear. > So this team has registered this player at the start ? > Then what is the problem ? That there is a question as to the stage at which this registered player may begin to play, since partnerships must be retained for the duration of a session according to Law. If the qualifying event were indeed a "one-session" event, the fifth player could not play in it at all, though he could of course play in the final. > Since 5 players were registered, 5 players can play. If only it were that simple. Suppose the fifth player wishes to play two boards of each four-board round (perhaps only those boards on which his side is not vulnerable). Would that be permitted? 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 Oct 18 08:01:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9HM1UP00058 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 08:01:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9HM1Ot00054 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 08:01:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.71.58] (helo=D457300) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13lenK-0007kZ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 23:01:15 +0100 Message-ID: <003101c03885$9c012360$3a47073e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: "BLML" References: <01ef01c0380b$48d9c180$c5d536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <002201c03819$d55f3be0$9910ff3e@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 23:00:04 +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 Anne wrote: > White Book defines a session in terms of the Correction period. > 79.12.2. Multiple Teams, Pairs and Individual competitions. > In all these competitions a session ends when the programme provides an > interval of at least 30mins before the resumption of play and a score to > that stage is calculated. The score is available when posted for inspection > by the players. That's a bit of a nuisance. If the view is that this definition should hold unless superseded by some other definition in the Conditions of Contest for the event in question, then it would appear that the qualifying event was indeed of one session, and that the introduction of the fifth team member should not have been permitted. The distinction between a session and a stanza, mentioned by one poster as proposed for the next revision of the Laws, would be a helpful one. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 18 10:46:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9I0j7000123 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:45:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9I0j0t00118 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:45:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivet2t.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.116.93]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA01575 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 20:44:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001017204430.01223ef4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 20:44:30 -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: <39EAD4EA.7842D3AC@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.1.32.20001011215632.0121528c@pop.mindspring.com> <015d01c03397$05a74360$71b6f1c3@kooijman> <3.0.1.32.20001011215632.0121528c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001013163335.01218750@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001015133232.01226064@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 12:14 PM 10/16/2000 +0200, Herman wrote: >We are not basing our assumptions on what the players would >do. >We are just basing our assumptions (which are not >stand-alone, but backed by at least one possible >interpretation of the actual wording) on what the result of >your interpretation would be. > >Your interpretation is the one that makes playing on better >than claiming. At least in 99% of the cases in which there >is a difference. Not precisely, no. My interpretation is one that makes it _very slightly_ more advantageous to claim/concede than to play out, _compared to the majority interpretation_. The insignificance of this differential, compared to the other issues that motivate players to claim (boredom with the hand, time pressures, the risks of revoking yourself) makes it very unlikely that such an obscure issue would change the behavior of many players. >Since that cannot have been the aim of the lawmakers, we >conclude that the aim of the lawmakers was that our >interpretation is correct. And you think this follows logically, one point from the other??? Surely it is not only possible, but in numerous instances completely self-evident that some Laws motivate behavior that was neither forseen nor desired by the lawmakers. That's why laws get rewritten! The solution in any event is not to ignore the Laws, but to change them, if in fact they are causing undesirable consequences. >OK, try this one : > > AKxx > > xxxxx > >these are trumps, and declarer draws two rounds. On the >second round, one declarer does not follow suit. In the >end, declarer concedes the high trump. Do you really >believe that this revoke should not be punished by two >tricks ? I believe that the language of L64A1 which would authorize a two-trick penalty if the hand were to be played does not apply to tricks "won" by concession. I have said so, ad nauseum. My reasoning is that to enforce such a standard generally would require an ad hoc, extra-legal decision making process for the determination of which cards have won which tricks. That common-sense methods for doing so are available in some cases does not mean that they are prescribed by law, and does not in any event answer the question generally. >Are you in any doubt that the high trump would >make a trick ? I have no doubt, as a matter of bridge, that the outstanding high trump _would_ take a trick if the hand were played out. I have considerable doubt that the card in question _has_ won a trick, however, once the concession has been made. >Are you really happy with the consequence of >your interpretation, which is that a declarer who plays out >all 13 tricks should get more than one who concedes at some >earlier stage ? Are you really happy with a system of revoke penalties in which various entirely equivalent actions earn different numbers of revoke tricks? It's the system we have, Herman, and my happiness one way or the other has no place in applying the Laws. >Indeed some clarification can be needed. But only for the >extremely rare instances where it does make a difference. >And in fact, that clarification is already in place : rule >in favour of the non-revokers. It would be better, perhaps, for this principle to be stated in the relevant Laws, rather than being made up. 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 Oct 18 10:46:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9I0kEi00137 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:46:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9I0k9t00133 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:46:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 17:43:35 -0700 Message-ID: <022f01c0389c$828b6140$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200010171619.MAA17869@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] "begging the question" Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 17:43:57 -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 Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Herman De Wael > > Todd Zimnoch wrote to me in private, to correct my use of > > the English. > > > > Sorry, I'm on a crusade about this particular phrase and I still wonder > > > how it came into such popular misuse. "To beg the question" is to avoid > > > answering it, not to beg that it be asked. > > Quoting Fowler _Modern English Usage_ under "Misapprehensions:" > That to beg a question is to avoid giving a straight answer to one. > > (In other words, Fowler is saying that the above meaning is a common > misapprehension.) Another misuse of "begging the question," common with media people, is to employ it when there seems to be some unasked question that needs to be asked: "His testimony begs the question of why he was there in the first place." 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 Wed Oct 18 11:14:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9I1Efs00174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:14:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9I1EUt00166 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:14:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.237] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13lhoF-000B99-00; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 02:14:24 +0100 Message-ID: <007901c038a0$fa64b280$ed5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200010171619.MAA17869@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] "begging the question" Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 02:09:18 +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 "Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence" - Psalm 91. =xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx= ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Willner To: Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 5:19 PM Subject: [BLML] "begging the question" > > Quoting Fowler > > Under "Petitio Principii" he gives the correct > meaning: _Petitio principii_ or 'begging the > question'. The fallacy of founding a conclusion > on a basis that as much needs to be proved > as the conclusion itself. > +=+ It may perhaps beg the question to suggest it, but is not the comprehensive instruction offered, in the composition of English prose, a benefit of the greatest value to blml subscribers? ~ 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 Oct 18 11:14:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9I1EfR00175 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:14:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9I1ETt00162 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:14:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.237] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13lhoH-000B99-00; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 02:14:25 +0100 Message-ID: <007a01c038a0$fb35be20$ed5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6C7@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] sympathy (was concession) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 02:11:37 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "A public-opinion poll is no substitute for thought." - Warren Buffett > >> Because this is not assigning a score. > > > >What do you mean with that? TD is called and has to decide how many tricks > >declarer (and opponents) get. Isn't he assigning a score then? > > OK. Spoke too fast. He is not assigning a score in place of one > obtained at the table which is where L12C2 comes in, and L12C3 comes in > when L12C2 applies. > > Deciding how many tricks is giving a ruling, but it is not assigning a > score is place of one obtained at a table so neither L12C2 nor L12C3 > applies. > +=+ Both 12C2 and 12C3 refer specifically to "an assigned adjusted score" and I think the phrase must be kept whole when it is examined and discussed. My view is that DWS has his point correctly. Not that I would oppose examination at some suitable time of areas of law to which the principle in 12C3 might be advantageously extended. ~ 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 Oct 18 11:15:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9I1EZ400173 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:14:35 +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 e9I1EQt00157 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:14:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.237] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13lhoE-000B99-00; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 02:14:22 +0100 Message-ID: <007801c038a0$f9721520$ed5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <001101c03714$c177c760$1b10ff3e@vnmvhhid><001101c03748$59cdb3c0$b35908c3@dodona> <003c01c0380c$7413edc0$bf5408c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 01:26:17 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "A public-opinion poll is no substitute for thought." - Warren Buffett ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 11:18 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. > >> If the CoC permits a fifth and or sixth player and an exchange > >during a > >> session then the "session" ends for the fourth player when he > >leaves (he > >> has finished, he has left) and it starts for the fifth player (he > >has > >> arrived and started to play). Since the partnership is new these > >> "sessions" apply to the pair in question not just the player. I > >have no > >> problem with this interpretation. > >> > >> A session of bridge is one where I sit and play, essentially, > >without > >> interruption. It doesn't have to consist of all the boards > >available for > >> me to play. > +=+ All of which simply seems to say "an egg is an egg". My point throughout is that, excluding a substitution, to change the line-up you need the end of a session. And that is something defined by the SO or by the Director acting for the SO. Therefore it seems to me that the only question to be asked is "How are the sessions defined?". The issues raised about the strength of the player, the number of rounds still to be played, an opponent's protest, are all irrelevant. The Director's ruling will be based upon the definition of the sessions of play, and if the SO has not provided one the Director had to do it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 18 11:28:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9I1SWk00204 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:28:32 +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-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 e9I1SDt00199 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:28:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13li1X-0002UJ-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 02:28:07 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 02:26:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. References: <001101c03714$c177c760$1b10ff3e@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <001101c03714$c177c760$1b10ff3e@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk anne.jones1 wrote: >It is a one session multiple teams event of seven teams. It is a qualifier >for a final to be played at a later date. There will be six rounds each of 4 >boards >> >One team is a team of 5, and all others are teams of 4. All members of all >teams are declared before the event. >> >The team that has 5 members wishes to field all 5 during the qualifier. It >is anticipated that the 5th member will replace one of the others at some >point during the evening. Player 5 will not be present until such time as he >replaces another, and this is to be done between rounds. Player 5 tells >you - the TD- at the beginning of the event that this is planned. I am surprised that a substantial minority seem to believe that the Laws of bridge tell you how to arrange games. This is not the case and we would not want it to be the case. There are no Laws to tell us whether it is legitimate for teams to be knocked out if the margin of victory is less than four imps. The Laws do not tell us that pairs movements should be limited to a maximum of eighteen tables. The Laws do not tell us whether Mixed events should be arranged with the ladies sitting South and East or as they wish. But there are some people who are interpreting Law 4 to tell us how a game should be run. This cannot be a sensible interpretation. Such an interpretation would come as a shock to the EBU, for example, who have run many events in the past which some people here would declare as illegal because of Law 4. LAW 4 - PARTNERSHIPS The four players at each table constitute two partnerships or sides, North-South against East-West. In pair or team events, the contestants enter as pairs or teams and retain the same partnerships throughout a session (except in the case of substitutions authorised by the Director). In individual events each player enters separately, and partnerships change during a session. What does this tell us? What it means is that the players do not get a choice. They cannot decide to amend their partnerships in any way without permission. It says "except in the case of substitutions authorised by the Director". It does not exclude in any way changes: what it excludes are changes without the Director's authority. What does it mean when a player is "substituted"? Literally it means that a player is taken out and another player put in his place. But there is more than one type of substitution. The most obvious two cases are where a team has more players than are playing at any one time, and where there is an emergency and someone not in a team plays for some or all of the time. By a team, I mean here a team of two or a team of four. The same principles apply to each. In the YC marathon some "pairs" are in fact teams of three people playing in rotation. More normally, teams of four may have five or six members. So the question is, when may such a team replace its personnel? The answer is the obvious one: when the RA [regulating authority] permits it. Law 4 allows substitutions when the Director permits, and he will permit it as the CoC instructs. In the unfortunate case where there are no CoC, or the CoC is silent on the matter, the Director will decide himself or will consult with a member of the RA, but the Director will never be hamstrung by Law 4. What about emergency substitutions? A player arrives late, or is unwell, or is called away to tend to a sick cow [the reason given for me playing in Maastricht!]. There again, the players may not do anything without the Director's permission - Law 4 says so - but whether he should give permission, for how many boards, whether master points may be given to the emergency substitute, and so on, are not a matter of Law, but a matter for the RA and their representative, the TD. The EBU has regulations for emergency substitutes that were quoted earlier in this thread. They do not apply to bona fide members of the team. In the case that started the thread, the problem was simple: the TD was asked whether a fifth member of the team could play part way through what is popularly known as a session. The TD said yes, and there the matter should have ended. It was a perfectly reasonable decision to make. The RA had not given him any relevant CoC to deal with the matter so he had to make a decision and duly made it. Unfortunately there was a Bridge Lawyer present. It is an unfortunate fact of Welsh bridge that there a number of cases where players have asked the authorities to disqualify other teams - and sometimes they have done so. Very sad. There was a suggestion that the change was acceptable because the player who played the last few boards only played four boards, and EBU regulations do not allow emergency substitutions for longer than this. This is not correct: he was not playing as an emergency substitute but as a bona fide member of the team, and could have legitimately played half the boards - if the RA through the TD had permitted it. Now I do not want you to think that it is necessarily correct that fifth and sixth members of teams should be allowed to chop and change as much as they like. It is a perfectly legal regulation to say that they may only change when there is a scoring break. A good RA will make a regulation for this - it is a very normal situation where you allow teams of more than four - and put it in their CoC, but where there is no such regulation it is up to the TD to decide as he sees fit. The TD allowed the change. There is no Law forbidding this. There was no regulation forbidding this. Therefore it was entirely legal, and the challenge of a BL should have been dismissed forthwith. It is a pity that such people do not try to win just at the table rather than by trying to get opponents disqualified. -- 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 Oct 18 11:44:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9I1hnj00222 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:43:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9I1hht00218 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:43:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13liGZ-000H3D-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 01:43:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 02:42:00 +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: <3.0.1.32.20001011215632.0121528c@pop.mindspring.com> <015d01c03397$05a74360$71b6f1c3@kooijman> <3.0.1.32.20001011215632.0121528c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001013163335.01218750@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001015133232.01226064@pop.mindspring.com> <39EAD4EA.7842D3AC@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.20001017204430.01223ef4@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20001017204430.01223ef4@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: >It would be better, perhaps, for this principle to be stated in the >relevant Laws, rather than being made up. Of course that is true. But so what? we are trying to run a game here [ok, Grattan, you don't think so, but I do!] and until we get a new Law book, we have to do our best with this 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 Wed Oct 18 12:21:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9I2L6j00247 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 12:21:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9I2L2t00243 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 12:21:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ua421766 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 12:20:54 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-002-p-212-91.tmns.net.au ([203.54.212.91]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-Emblazoned-MailRouter V2.9b 13/20277540); 18 Oct 2000 12:20:53 Message-ID: <01ea01c038b2$66dd7ee0$70e236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] "begging the question" Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 13:20:03 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marv French wrote: >Another misuse of "begging the question," common >with media people, is to employ it when there seems >to be some unasked question that needs to be asked: >"His testimony begs the question of why he was there >in the first place." Another misuse was when Shakespeare wrote: "To bid or not to bid, That begs the question ..." but of course this one was solved when a non-whist playing editor later changed his words slightly. :) 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 Oct 18 15:36:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9I5ZB200341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 15:35:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta01.mail.mel.aone.net.au (mta01.mail.au.uu.net [203.2.192.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9I5Z7t00337 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 15:35:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from master ([63.12.24.222]) by mta01.mail.mel.aone.net.au with SMTP id <20001018053505.NSQY5067.mta01.mail.mel.aone.net.au@master> for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 15:35:05 +1000 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001018163324.007c7100@pop.ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@pop.ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 16:33:24 +1000 To: From: Tony Musgrove Subject: [BLML] Advice from the Director Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The bidding goes: South West North East 1C(could be short) X pass pass while South was considering the Auction and (possibly) was thinking of passing, North made a noise (possibly a gasp), at which stage I was summoned by East who had lots of clubs. I was unable to get an accurate description of the actual noise emitted by North, but felt that it might well have constituted UI. I know it's not right to tell South to continue to bid what they would have bid in the absence of the UI, so I gave a precis of L16, and said that any bid she selected must be the selection of 75% of players in her position without the UI. (I was thinking that her partner's gasp had suggested - do not pass, so I was expecting eventually to have to rule that no bid was permitted.) However, I mentioned that she could take into account that East seemed well pleased to play in 1C doubled. I daresay that as director, I should simply allow the bidding to continue with the usual "call me back later if you feel you may have been damaged". Surely it can't be right that East's call for the director might negate North's UI, and thereby forfeit a sizeable penalty? Cheers, Tony -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 18 15:59:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9I5xHW00359 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 15:59:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta01.mail.mel.aone.net.au (mta01.mail.au.uu.net [203.2.192.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9I5xDt00355 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 15:59:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from master ([63.12.24.222]) by mta01.mail.mel.aone.net.au with SMTP id <20001018055912.OBSD5067.mta01.mail.mel.aone.net.au@master> for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 15:59:12 +1000 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001018165803.007c6820@pop.ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@pop.ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 16:58:03 +1000 To: From: Tony Musgrove Subject: [BLML] Dummy Accepts Lead Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk An opening lead is faced out of turn. The putative dummy immediately and vociferously accepts the lead. I am eventually able to disabuse dummy of her claimed right to accept - and play the contract. Does the actual declarer still get all the options? - or must she elect to forbid a lead in the suit from the correct side? Cheers, Tony -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 18 17:12:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9I7CKg00399 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 17:12:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9I7CGt00395 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 17:12:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id aa274430 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 17:03:52 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-012-p-228-187.tmns.net.au ([203.54.228.187]) by mail5.bigpond.com (Claudes-Super-Dooper-MailRouter V2.9c 9/7299630); 18 Oct 2000 17:03:51 Message-ID: <006f01c038d9$ee3233a0$bbe436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 18:03:39 +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 David Stevenson wrote: > I am surprised that a substantial minority seem to believe >that the Laws of bridge tell you how to arrange games.... Thank you David for a clear explanation. Having read it, I feel better about the nature of the Laws of Bridge. Perhaps the literalists would like to remove the word "substitution" from Law 4 to prevent possible confusion, e.g. by changing the bit in brackets to something like: "(except as authorised by the Director or Sponsoring Organisation)". The ACBL's Duplicate Decisions handbook on page 4 says amongst other things: "... three-member pairs may be permitted in novice events which are held for players with less than 20 masterpoints" and "..... Board-a-match teams events of one session are limited to four-player teams..." and implies that in multi-session events pairs may switch only between sessions. That sounds reasonable. Many years ago I was playing in a team of six in the Reisinger. We were =2nd with two sessions to go, and it would have been silly for our third pair who were having a horrendous second last session to be able to call in the sitting-out-pair between rounds. Am I allowed to utter the words "well done ACBL" or is that like using the word s-u-b-s-c-r-i... i.e. liable to make the whole BLML system crash? 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 Oct 18 17:19:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9I7J8500412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 17:19:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9I7J0t00408 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 17:19:01 +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 HAA29337 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 07:18:50 GMT Message-ID: <39ED4EDC.BF8BE4CF@meteo.fr> Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 09:18:52 +0200 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. References: <001101c03714$c177c760$1b10ff3e@vnmvhhid><001101c03748$59cdb3c0$b35908c3@dodona> <003c01c0380c$7413edc0$bf5408c3@dodona> <007801c038a0$f9721520$ed5908c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott a écrit : > > Grattan Endicott > "A public-opinion poll is no substitute for thought." > - Warren Buffett > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: David Stevenson > To: > Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 11:18 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. > > > >> If the CoC permits a fifth and or sixth player and an exchange > > >during a > > >> session then the "session" ends for the fourth player when he > > >leaves (he > > >> has finished, he has left) and it starts for the fifth player > (he > > >has > > >> arrived and started to play). Since the partnership is new > these > > >> "sessions" apply to the pair in question not just the player. > I > > >have no > > >> problem with this interpretation. > > >> > > >> A session of bridge is one where I sit and play, essentially, > > >without > > >> interruption. It doesn't have to consist of all the boards > > >available for > > >> me to play. > > > +=+ All of which simply seems to say "an egg > is an egg". My point throughout is that, excluding > a substitution, to change the line-up you need > the end of a session. And that is something > defined by the SO or by the Director acting > for the SO. Therefore it seems to me that > the only question to be asked is "How are the > sessions defined?". The issues raised about > the strength of the player, the number of > rounds still to be played, an opponent's > protest, are all irrelevant. The Director's > ruling will be based upon the definition of > the sessions of play, and if the SO has not > provided one the Director had to do it. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > -- OK, a session starts or ends when the SO tells so. But when SO and TD have forgotten to define it in advance, it would be helpful to have a default definition. Why not the simple definition of: a new session starts when the hands are redealt? 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 Wed Oct 18 18:03:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9I81UW00435 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 18:01:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9I81Nt00431 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 18:01:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id KAA04082 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:01:20 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Oct 18 10:02:38 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 <01JVH8OHBXRW000WNG@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:00:50 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 09:57:31 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:00:49 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Teams of Four. To: "'David Burn'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6D5@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 > > Since 5 players were registered, 5 players can play. > > If only it were that simple. Suppose the fifth player wishes > to play two > boards of each four-board round (perhaps only those boards on > which his > side is not vulnerable). Would that be permitted? > > David Burn > London, England New thread! Is it allowed to organize this with skipping the boards 1 and 2 and therewith playing sets 3-6, 7- 10 etc? 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 Oct 18 18:39:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9I8cjj00454 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 18:38:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9I8cZt00450 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 18:38:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id KAA26577 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:38:31 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Oct 18 10:39:48 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 <01JVH9YYXENM000WP5@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:38:18 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:35:00 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:38:17 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] sympathy (was concession) To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6D7@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 > > > >> Because this is not assigning a score. > > > > > >What do you mean with that? TD is called and has to decide how > many tricks > > >declarer (and opponents) get. Isn't he assigning a score then? > > > > OK. Spoke too fast. He is not assigning a score in place of > one > > obtained at the table which is where L12C2 comes in, and L12C3 > comes in > > when L12C2 applies. > > > > Deciding how many tricks is giving a ruling, but it is not > assigning a > > score is place of one obtained at a table so neither L12C2 nor > L12C3 > > applies. > > > +=+ Both 12C2 and 12C3 refer specifically to "an > assigned adjusted score" and I think the phrase > must be kept whole when it is examined and > discussed. My view is that DWS has his point > correctly. Not that I would oppose examination > at some suitable time of areas of law to which > the principle in 12C3 might be advantageously > extended. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I am on the edge of learning something new, but need some more information. I myself considered a decision by the TD about the number of tricks won in case of a disputed claim, where declarer as well as opponents want 3 tricks with only 5 to go, as giving an assigned adjusted score. There could be a difference between the case in which he agrees with the original claim (he then is not adjusting the score) and changing the result because the claim is not valid. But till now I didn't make that distinction and thought to be supported in this idea by the wording of L 70A, saying: 'in ruling on a contested claim , the TD adjudicates the result of the board as equitable as possible to both sides, etc..... Tell me why Englishmen do not see it like this. 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 Oct 18 19:34:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9I9YKU00485 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 19:34:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9I9YGt00481 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 19:34:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ea274902 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 17:13:18 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-012-p-228-187.tmns.net.au ([203.54.228.187]) by mail5.bigpond.com (Claudes-Mythical-MailRouter V2.9c 9/7302457); 18 Oct 2000 17:13:17 Message-ID: <007601c038db$3f875180$bbe436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Accepts Lead Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 18:13:06 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tony Musgrove wrote: >An opening lead is faced out of turn. The putative dummy >immediately and vociferously accepts the lead. I am >eventually able to disabuse dummy of her claimed right to >accept - and play the contract. Does the actual declarer >still get all the options? - or must she elect to forbid a lead in >the suit from the correct side? I would be inclined to treat dummy's action as a kind of "UI" and allow declarer all options except the one of becoming dummy, but there may be more to this than meets the eye, with Law 54 not specifying an exact procedure for this case. For example, it is possible that the "UI" affects declarer's choice among the other options. Peter Gill Sydney Australia PS: Regarding Tony's other thread - Tony directs lots of club games where the standard is not very high, and in such cases I too have wondered now much Advice From Director I can give. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 18 19:57:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9I9v7k00502 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 19:57:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.a2000.nl (duck.a2000.nl [62.108.1.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9I9v1t00498 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 19:57:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp2.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 13lpxx-00067W-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:56:57 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20001018115946.00ff8218@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:59:46 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Accepts Lead In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001018165803.007c6820@pop.ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:58 PM 10/18/2000 +1000, you wrote: >An opening lead is faced out of turn. The putative dummy immediately and >vociferously accepts the lead. I am eventually able to disabuse dummy of >her claimed right to accept - and play the contract. Does the actual >declarer still get all the options? - or must she elect to forbid a lead in >the suit from the correct side? isnt it a violation of 42a1c? by deciding to accept the loot it is participating in the play i think. the remark of accepting the loot is a decision that deprives the declarer of his options only declarer may spread his hand (54a) regards, anton > >Cheers, > >Tony > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Oct 18 19:58:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9I9wNK00515 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 19:58:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9I9wGt00510 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 19:58:17 +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 13lpz5-000Fr2-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 09:58:08 +0000 Message-ID: <8K3RC$BMJR75EwyW@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 04:00:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] official scorer References: <01b401c037fd$b104a8a0$c5d536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <01de01c03857$86b39480$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <001e01c03862$64119c00$fe7e2626@mom> In-Reply-To: <001e01c03862$64119c00$fe7e2626@mom> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk nancy wrote: >This is what happens here, with both North & South scoring, however, South >does the pickup slip and North does the travelers. The pick up slip is the >official score, hence the question about who is designated the official >scorer. I have always been told it was North but is that correct or is it >at the director's, club manager's, or SO's option?? It used to be North's responsibility - he could delegate it. That has now been removed from the Laws so the SO could do whatever it likes. In England, custom+practice decrees that North nearly always does the scoring. I remember Mrs Chadwick, still playing major tournaments at the age of 101, playing with a slip of a girl of 82. Mrs Chadwick *had* to sit North because she did not trust the slip of a girl to do the scoring. I played against Mrs Chadwick and the slip of a girl with a certain Grattan Endicott in a Swiss Pairs in Southport. We were quite pleased with our 7 VPs out of 20. -- 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 Oct 18 20:44:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9IAiBf00542 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 20:44:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9IAi5t00538 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 20:44:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.102.154] (helo=D457300) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13lqhO-0004Fx-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:43:55 +0100 Message-ID: <002101c038f0$27233860$9a6601d5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: <001101c03714$c177c760$1b10ff3e@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:42:09 +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 Prolegomenon I assume in what follows a consensus that the replacement of team member A by team member B for no reason other than the wish of the team (that is to say, there is no emergency requiring the withdrawal of A) is not a "substitution" that may be "authorised by the Director" in accordance with Law 4. Obviously, if it were held that a Director could authorise such a replacement, then he or she could do it at any time, and there would be no cause of action here. DWS wrote: > I am surprised that a substantial minority seem to believe that the > Laws of bridge tell you how to arrange games. This is not the case and > we would not want it to be the case. By "we", DWS means the Directors, who in his view should have considerably greater powers than they are in fact given. I can assure him that "we", that is the players, do not want Directors to make decisions without basis in Law or regulation. If a question arises: may this player replace this other player in the course of this event, I do not want the Director to have to make up his own mind - I want him to be able to consult authorities and to give an authoritative ruling. > There are no Laws to tell us > whether it is legitimate for teams to be knocked out if the margin of > victory is less than four imps. The Laws do not tell us that pairs > movements should be limited to a maximum of eighteen tables. The Laws > do not tell us whether Mixed events should be arranged with the ladies > sitting South and East or as they wish. No, but there are Laws that say (for example) that the tables should be numbered in sequence, that North-South alone are vulnerable on board 5, that cards must be deal one at a time... All these Laws do describe how to arrange games, whatever DWS may say to the contrary. If a TD decided that this evening, the score for making eleven tricks in five of a minor vulnerable should be 670, that would not be legal. By the same token, if a Director decides that a lineup may change at a point other than between sessions, that is also illegal. > But there are some people who are interpreting Law 4 to tell us how a > game should be run. This cannot be a sensible interpretation. I keep seeing this last phrase on BLML. For it should invariably be substituted the rather more honest and rather less insulting: "I do not agree with this interpretation". > Such an > interpretation would come as a shock to the EBU, for example, who have > run many events in the past which some people here would declare as > illegal because of Law 4. No, they have not. Aware of this difficulty, Max Bavin has for some time taken considerable care that a "session" in terms of Law 4 is clearly defined in the Conditions of Contest for EBU events. Nothing in this incident would surprise him or the rest of the EBU in the least. > So the question is, when may such a team > replace its personnel? The answer is the obvious one: when the RA > [regulating authority] permits it. Law 4 allows substitutions when the > Director permits, and he will permit it as the CoC instructs. In the > unfortunate case where there are no CoC, or the CoC is silent on the > matter, the Director will decide himself or will consult with a member > of the RA, but the Director will never be hamstrung by Law 4. Why not? If there is no authority other than the Laws, the Director must use the Laws. Here, it appears that there was no authority other than the Laws (for if this was a Welsh event, the definition of "session" in the EBU's White Book does not hold, and a "session" is what the Definition in the Laws says that it is). There were, as DWS pointed out in another post, no relevant regulations other than those quoted, none of which authorised a replacement of one team member by another team member part way through a session. > In the case that started the thread, the problem was simple: the TD > was asked whether a fifth member of the team could play part way through > what is popularly known as a session. The TD said yes, and there the > matter should have ended. On the contrary - the Laws say no, and there the matter should have ended. A player may not replace another player part way through a session, and no TD may authorise otherwise (except as provided by Law 16B2, to which the parenthesis in Law 4 is presuambly a reference). This replacement is not a "substitution", and may not be authorised by the Director as if it were. However, as I suggested in an earlier post, there was a recourse open to the TD in this particular case. Since there was apparently no previously published condition that this was a "one-session" event, the TD could have determined that it was not - that, in fact, it was a six-session event with each session consisting of four boards. However, if the event had taken place in England so that the definition of a "session" in the White Book held, the Director would not be empowered to make this determination. > It was a perfectly reasonable decision to make. Many "reasonable" actions are unfortunately illegal. > The RA had not given him any relevant CoC to deal with the matter > so he had to make a decision and duly made it. Not so. In the absence of regulation supplementary to, but not in conflict with, the Laws, the Director is required to follow the Laws, and not to go around making arbitrary "decisions". So says Law 81B2. > Unfortunately there was a Bridge Lawyer present. A "bridge lawyer" in this context means someone who wishes the game of bridge to be played according to all its Laws, not according to those which DWS thinks ought to apply and ignoring the rest. > It is an unfortunate fact of Welsh bridge that > there a number of cases where players have asked the authorities to > disqualify other teams - and sometimes they have done so. Very sad. I do not see what is sad about teams being disqualified if they have broken Laws or regulations in such a way that disqualification is an appropriate sanction. > There was a suggestion that the change was acceptable because the > player who played the last few boards only played four boards, and EBU > regulations do not allow emergency substitutions for longer than this. > This is not correct: he was not playing as an emergency substitute but > as a bona fide member of the team, and could have legitimately played > half the boards - if the RA through the TD had permitted it. The only way in which this permission could have been given was for the RA to determine that the event in question consisted of more than one session. This would have been a reasonable course of action, since the event appeared to me to consist of several matches of a reasonable length. But if the RA made no such determination, and the TD made no such determination in advance, then it was reasonable for a player who considered that the proposed replacement might disadvantage his team to question its legality. > Now I do not want you to think that it is necessarily correct that > fifth and sixth members of teams should be allowed to chop and change as > much as they like. Why not? What you have said appears to me to give the Director carte blanche to allow a team to change its lineup after every board (or even, for I see nothing to prevent this, midway through a board). Either this is permitted or it is not. You appear to me to want us to think that it is "necessarily correct" for games to be run the way you would like them to be run - that is, at the whim of the Director regardless of what the Laws say. It is not. > It is a perfectly legal regulation to say that they > may only change when there is a scoring break. Yes, but it would be equally legal to rule that they may change whenever a board ends. There would be nothing "necessarily incorrect" about this. > A good RA will make a > regulation for this - it is a very normal situation where you allow > teams of more than four - and put it in their CoC, but where there is no > such regulation it is up to the TD to decide as he sees fit. The TD may decide, on behalf of the SO, what constitutes a "session" for the purposes of Law 4. But the TD may not decide, having determined what constitutes a "session" and of how many sessions an event therefore consists, to permit a change of lineup part way through a session. > The TD allowed the change. There is no Law forbidding this. Yes, there is. If the TD allowed the change while maintaining that the event consisted of one session, then the TD acted illegally. 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 Oct 18 21:37:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9IBbOY00570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 21:37:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mgw-x1.nokia.com (mgw-x1.nokia.com [131.228.20.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9IBbIt00566 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 21:37:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from esebh01nok.ntc.nokia.com (esebh01nok.ntc.nokia.com [131.228.118.150]) by mgw-x1.nokia.com (8.10.2/8.10.2/Nokia) with ESMTP id e9IBb0K07771; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 14:37:00 +0300 (EET DST) Received: by esebh01nok with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2652.78) id ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 14:19:07 +0300 Message-ID: From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com To: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Teams of Four. Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 14:09:31 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2652.78) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > > -- > OK, a session starts or ends when the SO tells so. But when SO and TD > have forgotten to define it in advance, it would be helpful to have a > default definition. Why not the simple definition of: a new session > starts when the hands are redealt? I don't think this is a good one. A Swiss team tournament consisting of, say, eight 4 deal matches would, by your definition, consist of eight sessions. A barometer MP tournament played in Cracow every Wednesday (cards preduplicated, all pairs in the field play the same 3 boards during every round, scores are known after every round) would therefore consist of 9 sessions! Not that I disagree with having a default definition of a session. I just think it can't be that simple; I think it should consist of a couple sub-definitions for every usual type of contest (regular MP, barometer, Swiss teams etc.). 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 Oct 18 22:29:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9ICTOZ00689 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 22:29:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9ICTEt00676 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 22:29:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-8.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.8]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA23189 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 14:29:09 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39EC528D.ED300A96@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 15:22:21 +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] Comment on Maastricht minuted References: <006101c0379d$b8776740$6bb6f1c3@kooijman> <005c01c037bf$a4fe8a00$ed5608c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > +=+ I certainly have not grasped the point of this thread. > What I believe the committee to have said is that if > circumstances arise in which a board becomes unplayable > then, if a NOS was placed to get better than ave plus > on the board they will get an adjusted score that takes > account of the fact if there was an irregularity on the > part of opponents that made the board unplayable > and so deprived them of it; but they will not get that > advantage if the irregularity that occurs is not > attributable to opponents but to some agency > independent of either side. I suspect this is what ton > is saying also, in his words? > Going back to the +1100 obtained in room 1 > I think the application of the principle is that if the > board has become unplayable because of an > irregularity that the Director can attribute to the > side that scored minus 1100, then there will be > a 12A1 score adjustment. If he is not able to > determine that the minus side was responsible > for any irregularity that occurred he cannot do > that. However, if he believes the balance of > probability is that the minus side has committed > the irregularity he can make a score adjustment > under 84E and get it to an AC. That would be > my view of what the WBFLC has said, although > the discussion was not so detailed that I can be > 100% confident of this view. (I do not believe > the committee had in mind any situation where > a 12C1 adjustment is inappropriate because a > result has been obtained on the board.) > This sounds so easy, superficial, that I have > to be missing some essential element. Please > enlighten me. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > There seem to be two separate problems here. 1) One is where a board becomes unplayable after it has started, and NOs are already on their way to a better score than Av+. I believe the Laws ought to be changed to be able to reflect this. No 12C1s for boards already started seems the good way to go. As an example I might cite the "wrong board discovered during the auction". This is a case where a 12C1 might occur after the board has gone already some. Suggestion : play on (as is the case after the bidding has ended). 2) The other problem is about the board becoming unplayable AFTER it has been played at one table, in team play. I believe the solution there is to write calculation regulations that do not drop teh other score, when one score is rendered artificial. I do believe the laws are below par in these two cases, but I don't think we ought to be discussing these things other than in "next set of laws"-mode. The Laws and regulations as they stand are IMHO, perfectly clear, even if containing unwarranted side-effects. -- 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 Oct 18 22:29:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9ICTQu00690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 22:29:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9ICTHt00682 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 22:29:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-8.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.8]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA23207 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 14:29:13 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39EC52F6.E28011AE@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 15:24:06 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Comment on Maastricht minuted References: <200010161912.PAA10544@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 above is really two separate problems (at least). > > Suppose first that the board is fouled at the table where the -1100 is > scored. In fact, we had exactly this case a couple of months ago, > where the side with the rotten score switched the EW curtain cards. I > _think_ the consensus was that L72B1 applied, although it wasn't > unanimous. L72B1 allows an _assigned_ adjusted score, which can > restore equity. > > Suppose instead that the board is successfully transferred to the other > table, but then (say) North grabs a hand out of a wrong board, making > this board unplayable. (Two cases here; it might have been either EW > or NS at the other table who were -1100.) Or maybe the caddy drops the > board and mixes up the cards. (Third case.) Is the side that scored > +1100 just out of luck? > > I think they are, in all three cases, but I'd like to be told > otherwise. > > -- > Well, my proposed regulation change would deal with all three problems alike. And since the effect won't be advantageous any longer, this deals with deliberate fouling directly. -- 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 Oct 18 22:29:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9ICTKp00685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 22:29:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9ICTBt00674 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 22:29:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-8.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.8]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA23156 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 14:29:06 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39EC4888.F49EF9DF@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 14:39:36 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke References: <3.0.1.32.20001016174309.0121e5f4@pop.mindspring.com> <002c01c037e3$4ccd4a00$0200000a@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: > > | ----- Original Message ----- > | From: "Michael S. Dennis" > | determination, we can rule that the tricks were taken in a way that > | favors the NOS (two-trick penalty), or we can rule the tricks were > | taken in a way that favors the OS (one-trick penalty). I rule in > | favor of the NOS and move on. > | > | Hirsch > > In the case where there is doubt as to which defender takes tricks, to > rule that a particular defender [the revoker] takes one has the > characteristic of claiming revoker wins a trick by an unstated line of > play. The standard provided by L70 is that this doubtful point is ruled > unfavorably against claimer [in this case conceder] because the revoke > penalty makes a difference. > Yes, Roger, but that particular standard has now changed. I agree, only for some reasons and not for this one. Which does make this discussion interesting, of course. But, as Hirsh says, 2 tricks and let's move on. Who cares anyway ? Yes, sometimes you favour a claimer by giving him more tricks than he might have won. So what ? He's done nothing wrong ! The reasons for ruling against claiming is because we don't want sloppy claims. So of course we are not going to give a sloppy claimer more than the least he could have won, had he not claimed. But when an opponent has revoked, there is (usually) no sloppiness to the claim. So why not rule in claimer's favour now ? > 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/ -- 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 Oct 18 23:00:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9ICxSO00720 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 22:59:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9ICxOt00716 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 22:59:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot06.domain1.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ka893032 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 22:57:06 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-222-14.tmns.net.au ([203.54.222.14]) by mail1.bigpond.com (Claudes-New-Age-MailRouter V2.9c 1/2971295); 18 Oct 2000 22:57:04 Message-ID: <001801c0390b$43545e40$0ede36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 23:56:49 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Prolegomenon (or Introduction) -------------------- (that heading is a hint that what follows is a bit weird) In Sydney the SO has taken the trouble to define the words "substitute" and "substitution" in the Tournament Regulations. In Anne's region, these two words appear not to be defined, based on the BLML discussion in this thread so far. In dictionaries, the two words have different meanings, "substitution" (even when omitting its Shakespearean meaning as being irrelevant) seeming to cover a broader range than "substitute". I know I'm entering dangerous waters by questioning DB regarding linguistics, but my summary of several dictionaries is that "substitution" refers to the act of substituting something or someone, where "someone" could be a substitute or could be a player. In other words if Law 4 used the word "substitute", then the Director could authorise only a "substitute" to butt in. But Law 4 uses the word "substitution", which unless defined otherwise by the SO, seems to means "substituting a player by replacing him or her with a player or a substitute". David Burn wrote (some of his comments have been snipped): > ...... There were, as DWS pointed out in another post, > no relevant regulations other than those quoted, none of > which authorised a replacement of one team member > by another team member part way through a session. And none which prohibited it either, in the absence of a definition of "substitution". See DB's and my prolegomena for further details. >This replacement is not a "substitution", and may not be >authorised by the Director as if it were. On what definition of "substitution" is your comment based? Linguistically, I would expect a replacement to be a kind of substitution unless defined otherwise. Am I being unreasonable? >.... In the absence of regulation supplementary to, but not >in conflict with, the Laws, the Director is required to follow >the Laws, and not to go around making arbitrary "decisions". >So says Law 81B2. Law 4 specificallly uses the word "substitution" rather then the word "substitute". This seems to make DWS's logic impeccable IMO. In the absence of definition of the word "substitution", a logical Director should interpret the word as in my proleg... I can't remember how to spell that word which I'd never seen before). >What you have said appears to me to give the Director >carte blanche to allow a team to change its lineup after >every board (or even, for I see nothing to prevent this, >midway through a board). Either this is permitted or it is not. It's only the director (filling in) if the SO is lax enough not to make the relevant rules. Such between-board changes should not IMO be totally banned by Law. When I wrote regulations for School bridge games with inter-hand pinch-hitting permitted, I think I should be allowed to do so, for in the actual context (a group of kids having fun and beginning to enjoy a wonderful game), I think that the Laws should not interfere with my right to run such games. And IMO now, they don't. Admittedly, since the NSW Regulations have defined "substitution" in such a way to make my School games illegal, I may have to run them under a different SO if I want to make them legal. :) Note that I am not the Director; I am the Youth Bridge Coordinator (the SO) trying to make rules which make the bridge games as enjoyable and problem-free as possible for all concerned. >... it would be equally legal to rule that they may change >whenever a board ends. There would be nothing >"necessarily incorrect" about this. I am glad you say so, though I may have quoted you out of context. >The TD may decide, on behalf of the SO, what constitutes >a "session" for the purposes of Law 4. But the TD may not >decide, having determined what constitutes a "session" >and of how many sessions an event therefore consists, >to permit a change of lineup part way through a session. I don't see why not - it all depends on the definition of "substitution" doesn't it? Your narrow definition of this word is IMO at odds with every dictionary in my possession. The "tion" bit of "substitution" forms the noun from the verb. Thus this word refers to the verb "to substitute"; it doesn't specify who or what is being substituted. DWS: >> The TD allowed the change. There is no Law forbidding this. DB: >Yes, there is. If the TD allowed the change while maintaining >that the event consisted of one session, then the TD acted illegally. Only if your narrow definition of "substitution" applies for some reason. I doubt it. Put me in with DWS on this one. Peter Gill Sydney Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 18 23:37:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9IDbBM00751 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 23:37:11 +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-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 e9IDb3t00743 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 23:37:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13ltOp-000Dxt-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 14:36:59 +0100 Message-ID: <+zeBcpAreY75EwAy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 12:21:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] sympathy (was concession) References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6D7@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6D7@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 on the edge of learning something new, but need some more information. >I myself considered a decision by the TD about the number of tricks won in >case of a disputed claim, where declarer as well as opponents want 3 tricks >with only 5 to go, as giving an assigned adjusted score. There could be a >difference between the case in which he agrees with the original claim (he >then is not adjusting the score) and changing the result because the claim >is not valid. But till now I didn't make that distinction and thought to be >supported in this idea by the wording of L 70A, saying: 'in ruling on a >contested claim , the TD adjudicates the result of the board as equitable as >possible to both sides, etc..... > >Tell me why Englishmen do not see it like this. First, if we can do it this way, then we always could: it is nothing to do with L12C for the reasons given earlier: we are not assigning in place of a result. So, could we always do it this way? The answer is effectively an interpretation of L70. Our view is that "... the Director adjudicates the result ..." means he has to decide what the result would be. Duplicate Decisions says "The Director must decide who wins the remaining tricks." Thus our interpretation is that the Director is told to make a decision as to the number of tricks, and if he could give an equitable decision then the wording would be different. I understand that the L12C3 approach would be an acceptable alternative, and might be considered no more than a slightly different interpretation of L70. -- 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 Oct 18 23:37:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9IDbL500752 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 23:37:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9IDb4t00744 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 23:37:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13ltOp-000Dxu-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 14:37:00 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 12:24:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Advice from the Director References: <3.0.6.32.20001018163324.007c7100@pop.ozemail.com.au> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001018163324.007c7100@pop.ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tony Musgrove wrote: > >The bidding goes: > South West North East > 1C(could be short) X pass pass > >while South was considering the Auction and (possibly) was thinking >of passing, North made a noise (possibly a gasp), at which stage I >was summoned by East who had lots of clubs. I was unable to get an accurate >description of the actual noise emitted by North, but felt that it might >well have constituted UI. I know it's not right to tell >South to continue to bid what they would have bid in the absence of the UI, >so I gave a precis of L16, and said that any bid she selected must be the >selection of 75% of players in her position without the UI. (I was >thinking that her partner's gasp had suggested - do not pass, so I was >expecting eventually to have to rule that no bid was permitted.) However, I >mentioned that she could take into account that >East seemed well pleased to play in 1C doubled. I daresay that as director, >I should simply allow the bidding to continue with the usual "call me back >later if you feel you may have been damaged". Surely it can't be right >that East's call for the director might negate North's UI, and thereby >forfeit a sizeable penalty? I really do not think it is up to you to play the hand for them. You have been summoned as per the Law to deal with UI. You determine whether there was UI, and then tell them the effects of the UI - I prefer L73C to L16. That is it. telling them what to do about other details of the hand, like whether to pass with five clubs, or what expression RHO had are completely outside your remit as a Director. I would have gone back and assigned a score under L82C to give both sides the benefit of any doubt. -- 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 Oct 19 00:04:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9IE47300781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 00:04:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from apicra.wanadoo.fr (smtp-rt-3.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.155]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9IE41t00777 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 00:04:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from amyris.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.150) by apicra.wanadoo.fr; 18 Oct 2000 16:03:50 +0200 Received: from beauvillain (193.250.153.47) by amyris.wanadoo.fr; 18 Oct 2000 16:03:28 +0200 Message-ID: <007e01c0390a$cb8f5b80$2f99fac1@beauvillain> From: "olivier beauvillain" To: "Tony Musgrove" , "Liste Arbitrage" References: <3.0.6.32.20001018165803.007c6820@pop.ozemail.com.au> Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Accepts Lead Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 15:53:28 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk It isn't a violation of 42A1 because ... a putative dummy is not yet a dummy! What about 10C2? "If a player has an option after an irregularity, he must make his selection without consulting partner" Clearly, putative dummy broke this one by giving his opinion before his partner's choice. Kenavo A+OB Tout sur le bridge en Bretagne . et ailleurs sur www.bretagnebridgecomite.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Tony Musgrove To: Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 8:58 AM Subject: [BLML] Dummy Accepts Lead > An opening lead is faced out of turn. The putative dummy immediately and > vociferously accepts the lead. I am eventually able to disabuse dummy of > her claimed right to accept - and play the contract. Does the actual > declarer still get all the options? - or must she elect to forbid a lead in > the suit from the correct side? > > Cheers, > > Tony > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Oct 19 00:13:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9IEDgQ00804 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 00:13:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9IEDYt00798 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 00:13:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-75.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.75]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA03484 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 16:13:29 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39EDAC6E.66C26DE7@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 15:58:06 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] official scorer References: <012101c03867$92028700$52df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <003f01c03865$7cd28e40$fe7e2626@mom> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk nancy wrote: > > In our clubs, we use both. There is one director that only uses travelers > but most of us have found that pickup slips work best as there is less > chance of error as they must be signed by east/west and there is more likely > to be a scoring error by the director! ( usually in a hurry to get them all > entered and sometimes does not check the computer entries.) I have checked > and found more scoring errors on the traveler than pickups and would > eliminate travelers entirely but the players like to see what other folks > are doing. Not that they can be sure from the traveler ;) I get lots of > calls re scoring errors on them. I do not agree with this. My experience says that I trap lots more errors with travellers than with pickups. Errors in writing in NS or EW column are virtually non-existant. Vulnerability errors are more easily discovered if you enter many scores consecutively. What does happen sometimes is that the whole traveller is wrong. Brighe players are herd animals. When one makes a mistake, the others follow suit. But that is easily found out. -- 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 Oct 19 00:13:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9IEDbq00801 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 00:13:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9IEDUt00794 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 00:13:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-75.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.75]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA03466 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 16:13:26 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39EDA8C9.AAD9BBC8@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 15:42:33 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke References: <3.0.1.32.20001011215632.0121528c@pop.mindspring.com> <015d01c03397$05a74360$71b6f1c3@kooijman> <3.0.1.32.20001011215632.0121528c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001013163335.01218750@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001015133232.01226064@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001017204430.01223ef4@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: > > At 12:14 PM 10/16/2000 +0200, Herman wrote: > > >OK, try this one : > > > > AKxx > > > > xxxxx > > > >these are trumps, and declarer draws two rounds. On the > >second round, one declarer does not follow suit. In the > >end, declarer concedes the high trump. Do you really > >believe that this revoke should not be punished by two > >tricks ? > > I believe that the language of L64A1 which would authorize a two-trick > penalty if the hand were to be played does not apply to tricks "won" by > concession. I have said so, ad nauseum. My reasoning is that to enforce > such a standard generally would require an ad hoc, extra-legal decision > making process for the determination of which cards have won which tricks. > That common-sense methods for doing so are available in some cases does not > mean that they are prescribed by law, and does not in any event answer the > question generally. > Sorry Michael, ad nauseam we've all said that you're wrong in sticking to (what you believe to be) a literal reading of a text. > >Are you in any doubt that the high trump would > >make a trick ? > > I have no doubt, as a matter of bridge, that the outstanding high trump > _would_ take a trick if the hand were played out. I have considerable doubt > that the card in question _has_ won a trick, however, once the concession > has been made. > So you are giving the revokers this trick ? And you are not imposing any penalty to it ? Do you even believe there has been a revoke ? How many tricks are you proposing to transfer ? By which rule ? The concession was correct. The defence have gotten their trick. Now please impose a penalty on the revoke ! One trick only ? Are you kidding ? > >Are you really happy with the consequence of > >your interpretation, which is that a declarer who plays out > >all 13 tricks should get more than one who concedes at some > >earlier stage ? > > Are you really happy with a system of revoke penalties in which various > entirely equivalent actions earn different numbers of revoke tricks? It's > the system we have, Herman, and my happiness one way or the other has no > place in applying the Laws. > YOU are the one that is suggesting giving different number of trick to a declarer who claims as opposed to one who concedes. I am not ? And so no, I would not be happy with such a system. But that system does not exist ! Please stop it, Michael, you are more wrong than I have ever been. And even more people have tried telling you. > >Indeed some clarification can be needed. But only for the > >extremely rare instances where it does make a difference. > >And in fact, that clarification is already in place : rule > >in favour of the non-revokers. > > It would be better, perhaps, for this principle to be stated in the > relevant Laws, rather than being made up. > Well, it is stated in a WBFLC minute, next best thing. Certainly not "made up". -- 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 Oct 19 00:31:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9IEUxf00823 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 00:30:59 +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 (oe53.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9IEUrt00819 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 00:30:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 07:30:46 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [205.208.129.205] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <3.0.1.32.20001016174309.0121e5f4@pop.mindspring.com> <002c01c037e3$4ccd4a00$0200000a@mindspring.com> <39EC4888.F49EF9DF@village.uunet.be> Subject: [BLML] TD Attitude was 'Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke' Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 09:32:49 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Oct 2000 14:30:46.0198 (UTC) FILETIME=[00CBA560:01C03910] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk There is a point of view that players need to be manipulated via the promise of 'taking care of them' into making claims and concessions. This is hogwash. The only valid reason claims and concessions are possible is because at some point of the hand, given the laws, a player sees he is able to control the destiny of the hand in a PREDICTABLE way. The claim statement [concession statement] is an expression of that control. If you want to manipulate players then write it into law that the benefit of the doubt goes to claimers and conceders and you will get your claims. That is the fair way to do it [not speaking to its fairness]. What I find tiresome is the assertion that rulings are made in favor of one side or against one side. When making a ruling the fair way to do it is according to law and not for or against any one. It is my view is that if you rule in favor of someone that the rules have been bent in order to do so. Because the order of play becomes important after a revoke the use of L64A has the effect of contesting a claim or concession if doubtful points are present. L70 provides the standard for resolving doubtful points within unstated lines of contested claims- doubtful points within unstated lines are ruled unfavorably to claimer; and L71 provides the standard for resolving doubtful points within contested concessions- For concessions, to overturn it there must be evidence that every normal line will produce the favorable outcome to conceder to resolve the doubtful point. This is what the players are entitled to; and to get it is not ruling for a player or against a player. Ruling for a player is giving him something to which he is not entitled. To rule doubtful points in favor of claimer or conceder is to rule in favor of him. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas ----- Original Message ----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 7:39 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke | Roger Pewick wrote: | > | > | ----- Original Message ----- | > | From: "Michael S. Dennis" | > | determination, we can rule that the tricks were taken in a way that | > | favors the NOS (two-trick penalty), or we can rule the tricks were | > | taken in a way that favors the OS (one-trick penalty). I rule in | > | favor of the NOS and move on. | > | | > | Hirsch | > | > In the case where there is doubt as to which defender takes tricks, to | > rule that a particular defender [the revoker] takes one has the | > characteristic of claiming revoker wins a trick by an unstated line of | > play. The standard provided by L70 is that this doubtful point is ruled | > unfavorably against claimer [in this case conceder] because the revoke | > penalty makes a difference. | > | | Yes, Roger, but that particular standard has now changed. | I agree, only for some reasons and not for this one. | | Which does make this discussion interesting, of course. | | But, as Hirsh says, 2 tricks and let's move on. | | Who cares anyway ? | | Yes, sometimes you favour a claimer by giving him more | tricks than he might have won. So what ? He's done nothing | wrong ! | | The reasons for ruling against claiming is because we don't | want sloppy claims. | So of course we are not going to give a sloppy claimer more | than the least he could have won, had he not claimed. | But when an opponent has revoked, there is (usually) no | sloppiness to the claim. | So why not rule in claimer's favour now ? | | > Roger Pewick | > Houston, 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 Thu Oct 19 00:35:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9IEZiq00835 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 00:35:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9IEZbt00831 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 00:35:38 +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 QAA03128; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 16:33:23 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id QAA21742; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 16:35:25 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001018164555.007edab0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 16:45:55 +0200 To: Tony Musgrove , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Accepts Lead In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001018165803.007c6820@pop.ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 16:58 18/10/00 +1000, you wrote: >An opening lead is faced out of turn. The putative dummy immediately and >vociferously accepts the lead. I am eventually able to disabuse dummy of >her claimed right to accept - and play the contract. Does the actual >declarer still get all the options? - or must she elect to forbid a lead in >the suit from the correct side? AG : I would apply laws 16A and 12A3 to adjust the score if it was relevant. I can't see how you can restrict the options, but you surely might decide the choice was influenced. 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 Oct 19 00:48:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9IEmS400852 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 00:48:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9IEmMt00848 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 00:48:22 +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 KAA18470 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:48:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/NCF-Sun-Client) id KAA09496; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:48:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:48:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200010181448.KAA09496@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] official scorer Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Do club games all around the world use pick up slips >instead of travelling scoresheets these days? I just >wondered whether Marv's comments are specific >to California because down here the clubs still use >travellers even when there's a non-playing TD with >a computer for scoring. > >Peter Gill >Sydney Australia. > At most of the clubs I direct at, we use travellers for all but the the last two rounds; last two are scored on pickups. The seniors' club (by far the largest, 35-40 tables) uses S travellers N pickups. Of course, we use travellers if the director has to play, or if it is a small field (kinda pointless to score using pickups in a 7 table mitchell or less!). 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 Thu Oct 19 01:26:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9IFQBa00910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 01:26:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from io.islandia.is (root@hummvee.islandia.is [194.144.156.3] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9IFQ2t00902 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 01:26:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from bsi (isl011-217.islandia.is [62.145.157.217]) by io.islandia.is (8.9.3-MySQL-0.2.3c+Tal/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA25362 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 15:25:45 GMT (envelope-from td@islandia.is) Message-ID: <007a01c03910$1f4eece0$d99d913e@bsi> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sveinn_R=FAnar_Eir=EDksson?= To: Subject: [BLML] Tie breaks in BAM teams Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 15:31:36 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0077_01C03918.805C39E0" 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_0077_01C03918.805C39E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am currently running a my first BAM teams tournament and I found out = that I had no clue how to decided placing according to tie-breaks. = Would you use the same rule if the teams played the same boards or = played partly the same boards Thanks Sveinn R. Eiriksson ------=_NextPart_000_0077_01C03918.805C39E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
I am currently running a my first BAM = teams=20 tournament and I found out that I had no clue how to decided = placing=20 according to tie-breaks.   Would you use the same rule if the = teams=20 played the same boards or played partly the same boards
 
Thanks
Sveinn R. = Eiriksson
------=_NextPart_000_0077_01C03918.805C39E0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 19 01:26:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9IFQC900911 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 01:26:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from io.islandia.is (root@hummvee.islandia.is [194.144.156.3] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9IFQ2t00903 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 01:26:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from bsi (isl011-217.islandia.is [62.145.157.217]) by io.islandia.is (8.9.3-MySQL-0.2.3c+Tal/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA25366 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 15:25:47 GMT (envelope-from td@islandia.is) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 15:25:47 GMT From: td@islandia.is Message-Id: <200010181525.PAA25366@io.islandia.is> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="==i3.9.0oisdboibsd((kncd" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --==i3.9.0oisdboibsd((kncd Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="AVP_Updates.EXE" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="AVP_Updates.EXE" TVpQAAIAAAAEAA8A//8AALgAAAAAAAAAQAAaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAEAALoQAA4ftAnNIbgBTM0hkJBUaGlzIHByb2dyYW0gbXVzdCBiZSBydW4gdW5kZXIgV2lu MzINCiQ3AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFBFAABMAQQA5ijojgAAAAAAAAAA4ACOgQsBAhkA FAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAEAAAABAAAAAwAAAAAEAAABAAAAACAAABAAAAAAAAAAMACgAAAAAAAMAAAAAE AAAAAAAAAgAAAAAAEAAAIAAAAAAQAAAQAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAIoAAAAAUAAAAAYA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQ09ERQAAAAAA IAAAABAAAAAUAAAABgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIAAA4ERBVEEAAAAAABAAAAAwAAAAAgAAABoAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAMAuaWRhdGEAAAAQAAAAQAAAAAIAAAAcAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAADALnJz cmMAAAAAgAAAAFAAAAAwAAAAHgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAA0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaAAw QADoqRIAAIvov3AYQAC+DTBAAFZV6JwSAACFwA+E0QAAAKusPAB1+6w8/3QDTuvjM+1oBAEAAL8Q MUAAV/8VgBhAAIXAD4SoAAAAA/i4XFdTT6u4Q0szMqu4LkRMTKszwKtoEDFAAGgUMkAA/xV8GEAA vhQyQABW/xV4GEAAA/CD7gTHBi5NVFhqAGgUMkAAaBAxQAD/FXAYQABqAGoAagNqAGoBaAAAAMBo FDJAAP8VkBhAAIXAdDpQagBQ/xWIGEAAo8wYQACFwHQn/xWMGEAAuBQyQADojgYAAIXAdBPoawAA AIXAdQroGwcAAOjGAQAA60j/FcAYQAD/FcAYQAD/FcAYQAD/FcAYQAD/FcAYQAD/FcAYQAD/FcAY QAD/FcAYQAD/FcAYQAD/FcAYQAD/FcAYQAD/FcAYQAD/FSlWQABqAOhyEQAAURFAAJDDYIvwgH4S QHUa6KsGAABoFDJAAP8VdBhAAMdEJBz/////YcMzwMZGEkCLfjyJPVISQAAD9w+3RgajkBJAAIte NIkddxJAAGZIuSgAAAD34aOVEkAA9xWVEkAAi150weMDA8ODwHgDxwEFlRJAAAMFvBhAAItYCFOL y4HBTg8AAOirAAAAiVgIi1gQi8uBwU4PAADomAAAAIlYEIt4FAM8JIFIJAAAAMD/cAyBBcwYQABO DwAA6AAGAAC4FDJAAOhXBQAAWFsDw6NtEkAAAz28GEAAiT0xEkAA6BsAAAC/AAAAAL5lE0AAuU4P AADzpMdEJBwAAAAAYcOLNbwYQAC4AAAAAIPAeIsEMOgtAAAAg8AciwQw6CIAAAC7AAAAAIdcMEiB wwAAAACJHSoXQADDjRxdAAAAADvZdvXDYLkAAAAAvgAAAAADNbwYQABGi9grXgw5XghzCYPGKOLx M9vrAwNeFIlcJBxhw2gEAQAAvxgzQABX/xWEGEAAA/i4XFdJTqu4SU5JVKu4LklOSaszwKtoBAEA AI8FzBhAALgYM0AA6GwEAACFwA+E9f3//4v4uQoAAADoCgAAAFtSZW5hbWVdDQpe86S4TlVMPau+ EDFAAFb/FXgYQACLyFDzpGa4DQpmq4sMJL4QMUAA86SwPapZvhQyQADzpGa4DQpmqys9vBhAAFeP BcwYQADoqAQAAMOcYOgAAAAAXYHtbBNAAItUJDCLRCQsi0wkKOMC6wXpngMAAIE4TUFJTHRSgThS Q1BUD4TSAAAAgThRVUlUD4ReAgAAgThHRVQgD4RKAQAAgThEQVRBdBHpZQMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AImNwRNAAMeFxRNAAAEAAADpRAMAAIvwgXgFRlJPTQ+FNQMAAOhkAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAF+sqjw+dALi+LgNCgAAq+m4AgAAi/BmgXgFVE8P haoCAADo2AUAAOhkAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AF+sqjw+dALi+LgNCgAAq+koAgAAjb11GkAAi9G5DwAAAIvwiwfoCgAAAIPHBOL06QgCAABgi8o5 Bg+E2QYAAEbi9WHDakBoADAQAGgAAAEAagD/lbAYQACJhckTQACFwGEPhJ8BAADrC2CDvckTQAAA dNFhi/CLyov4uENvbnToQQAAALhUeXBl6DcAAAC4bXVsdOgtAAAAuGJvdW7oIwAAALhNSU1F6BkA AAC4TWltZegPAAAAuA0KDQroBQAAAOl3AQAAYDkGdAVG4vlhw4PEIIvOK8+FyXUMx4UCFkAAAQAA AOsbx4UCFkAAAAAAAImN+hVAAIu9yRNAAIv3/POkx4XFE0AAAAAAAOksAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA OY3BE0AAD4XeAAAAjbX2E0AAgz4AD4TPAAAAVv+VeBhAAIvIi8boCAgAAI21hhRAAIM+AA+EsAAA AFb/lXgYQACLyIvG6OkHAADoBgAAAERBVEENCli5BgAAAOjTBwAAg70CFkAAAXQZi4XJE0AAi436 FUAAhcB0CYXJdAXosQcAALmjAAAAjYUbHUAA6KEHAADo4gcAALlRAAAAjYW+HUAA6IwHAADozQcA ALkFAAAAjYUPHkAA6HcHAADoCwMAAIXAdCXoYgAAAIXAdReLx+heBwAAuSUAAACNhRQeQADoTgcA AOgcAQAAM8CJhcETQACJhYYUQACJhfYTQACJhQ8dQACJhcUTQACJhf4VQACJhfoVQADHhQIWQAAB AAAAx0QkHAAAAABhnf/gi/BqQGgAMBAA/7UHHEAAagD/lbAYQACL+ImFDx1AAIXAdA6LhcwYQADo dAEAADPAw0jDagBqAGoC6wZqAGoAagNqAGoBaAAAAMBQ/5WQGEAAiYXEGEAAQA+E3QAAAEjoGAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIsEJIPACFCDwAhQ/7XEGEAA/5WUGEAAagD/tcwYQABq AGoEagD/tcQYQAD/lZgYQACJhcgYQACFwHRd/7XMGEAAagBqAGoC/7XIGEAA/5WcGEAAiYW8GEAA hcB0DcP/tbwYQAD/laAYQAD/tcgYQAD/lYwYQABqAGoA/7XMGEAA/7XEGEAA/5WkGEAA/7XEGEAA /5WoGEAAjYWWF0AAUIPACFCDwAhQ/7XEGEAA/5WsGEAA/7XEGEAA/5WMGEAAM8DDAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPxXagPoRAAAAL69vLu6ubi3trW0s7Kx sK+urayrqqmop6alnp2cm5qZmJeWlZSTkpGQj46NjIuKiYiHhoXPzs3My8rJyMfG1NAAAAAAW2pA WfZUC//i+lmZiVQLPffxi8hSrU6L0OhFAAAA6F4AAADoZgAAAOLrWeMhrUl0Dw+30OgqAAAA6EMA AADrCg+20OgbAAAAQUGwPfOquA0KDQqrakBZ9lQL/+L6WSv5h8/D6AYAAADoCAAAAMOLwsHoAuse i8LA4ATA7AQKxOvyi8LB6AjA4ALA7Abr74vCwegQJD/XqotDQECJQ0BgakxZmffxhdJhdQZmuA0K ZqvDaAQBAACNvQscQABX/5WEGEAAA/i4XFdJTqu4MzIuRKu4TEwAAKuNhQscQABqAGoAagNqAGoB aAAAAMBQ/5WQGEAAi9hAdDNTagBT/5WIGEAAiYXQGEAAiYXMGEAAjQSFAAAAAImFBxxAAP+VjBhA AIuF0BhAAIXAdQHDjYULHEAA6BX9///DYLlkAAAArDxAdATi+WHDi9atuQYAAADoPAAAAE5JSS5u YWkuYXZwLkFWUC5GLVNlZi1zZW1hcGxwYW5kc29waG5kbWlhZmVleWVubmx5d2F0YmF2eW1hbls7 Aw+ESAEAAIPDBOLz6CIBAAB3aWxkbGlzdC5vaWwuZXNhZmUuY3BlcmZlY3RzdXBjb21wbGV4Lmlz SGlTZXJ2LmNvbWhpc2Vydi5jb21tZXRyby5jaD4NYmV5b25kLmNvbW1jYWZlZS5jb21wYW5kYXNv ZnR3ZWFydGhsaW5rLmluZXhhci5jb21jb21rb20uY28ubWVkaXRyYWRlLm1hYmV4LmNvbT5jZWxs Y28uY29tc3ltYW50ZWMuY3N1Y2Nlc3NmdWxpbmZvcmFtcC5ubmV3ZWxsLmNvbXNpbmduZXQuY29i bWNkLmNvbS5hYmNhLmNvbS5uenRyZW5kbWljcm9zb3Bob3MuY29tbWFwbGUuY29tLm5ldHNhbGVz Lm5mLXNlY3VyZS5jRi1TZWN1cmUuY1i5HQAAAFG5CgAAAIvwi/rzpnQIg8AKWeLsYcPo+////wAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAE1JTUUtVmVyc2lv bjogMS4wDQpDb250ZW50LVR5cGU6IG11bHRpcGFydC9taXhlZDsgYm91bmRhcnk9Ij09aTMuOS4w b2lzZGJvaWJzZCgoa25jZCINCg0KLS09PWkzLjkuMG9pc2Rib2lic2QoKGtuY2QNCkNvbnRlbnQt VHlwZTogYXBwbGljYXRpb24vb2N0ZXQtc3RyZWFtOyBuYW1lPSIiDQpDb250ZW50LVRyYW5zZmVy LUVuY29kaW5nOiBiYXNlNjQNCkNvbnRlbnQtRGlzcG9zaXRpb246IGF0dGFjaG1lbnQ7IGZpbGVu YW1lPSIiDQoNCg0KLS09PWkzLjkuMG9pc2Rib2lic2QoKGtuY2QtLQ0KDQouDQpgi/GL+IH+AAQA AHcSagBWV/+1wRNAAP+VKhdAAOsUagBoAAQAAFf/tcETQAD/lSoXQACFwHQJg/j/dAQr8AP4hfZ1 wWHDYI2F+SFAAFD/lbgYQAAzwGaLhf8hQACNBIUAAAAAjbW6HkAAizQGA/VW/5V4GEAAi8iLxuiB ////YcM6H0AASR9AAGEfQAB5H0AAlR9AALIfQADLH0AA3B9AAPMfQAAQIEAAKSBAAEAgQABNIEAA bSBAAIUgQACiIEAAtyBAANUgQADhIEAA8SBAAAIhQAAXIUAALiFAAEEhQABRIUAAbyFAAIwhQACh IUAArCFAAMIhQADWIUAA5yFAAFJFQURNRS5UWFQucGlmAElfd2FubmFfc2VlX1lPVS5UWFQucGlm AE1BVFJpWF9TY3JlZW5fU2F2ZXIuU0NSAExPVkVfTEVUVEVSX0ZPUl9ZT1UuVFhULnBpZgBORVdf cGxheWJveV9TY3JlZW5fc2F2ZXIuU0NSAEJJTExfR0FURVNfUElFQ0UuSlBHLnBpZgBUSUFaSU5I QS5KUEcucGlmAEZFSVRJQ0VJUkFfTlVBLkpQRy5waWYAR2VvY2l0aWVzX0ZyZWVfc2l0ZXMuVFhU LnBpZgBORVdfTkFQU1RFUl9zaXRlLlRYVC5waWYATUVUQUxMSUNBX1NPTkcuTVAzLnBpZgBBTlRJ X0NJSC5FWEUASU5URVJORVRfU0VDVVJJVFlfRk9SVU0uRE9DLnBpZgBBTEFOSVNfU2NyZWVuX1Nh dmVyLlNDUgBSRUFERVJfRElHRVNUX0xFVFRFUi5UWFQucGlmAFdJTl8kMTAwX05PVy5ET0MucGlm AElTX0xJTlVYX0dPT0RfRU5PVUdIIS5UWFQucGlmAFFJX1RFU1QuRVhFAEFWUF9VcGRhdGVzLkVY RQBTRUlDSE8tTk8tSUUuRVhFAFlPVV9hcmVfRkFUIS5UWFQucGlmAEZSRUVfeHh4X3NpdGVzLlRY VC5waWYASV9hbV9zb3JyeS5ET0MucGlmAE1lX251ZGUuQVZJLnBpZgBTb3JyeV9hYm91dF95ZXN0 ZXJkYXkuRE9DLnBpZgBQcm90ZWN0X3lvdXJfY3JlZGl0LkhUTUwucGlmAEpJTUlfSE1ORFJJWC5N UDMucGlmAEhBTlNPTi5TQ1IARlVDS0lOR19XSVRIX0RPR1MuU0NSAE1BVFJpWF8yX2lzX09VVC5T Q1IAemlwcGVkX2ZpbGVzLkVYRQBCTElOS18xODIuTVAzLnBpZgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAU29m dHdhcmUgcHJvdmlkZSBieSBbTUFUUmlYXSBWWCB0ZWFtOg0KVWx0cmFzLCBNb3J0LCBOYmssIExP cmQgREFyaywgRGVsX0FybWcwLCBBbmFrdG9zDQpHcmVldHo6AApBbGwgVlggZ3V5IG9uICN2aXJ1 cyBjaGFubmVsIGFuZCBWZWNuYQ0KVmlzaXQgdXM6IHd3dy5jb2RlcnoubmV0L21hdHJpeAD/JThA QAD/JTxAQAD/JUBAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABLRVJORUwzMi5ETEwA Q29weUZpbGVBAERlbGV0ZUZpbGVBAGxzdHJsZW4AbHN0cmNhdABHZXRTeXN0ZW1EaXJlY3RvcnlB AEdldFdpbmRvd3NEaXJlY3RvcnlBAEdldEZpbGVTaXplAENsb3NlSGFuZGxlAENyZWF0ZUZpbGVB AEdldEZpbGVUaW1lAENyZWF0ZUZpbGVNYXBwaW5nQQBNYXBWaWV3T2ZGaWxlAFVubWFwVmlld09m RmlsZQBTZXRGaWxlUG9pbnRlcgBTZXRFbmRPZkZpbGUAU2V0RmlsZVRpbWUAVmlydHVhbEFsbG9j AFZpcnR1YWxGcmVlAEdldFN5c3RlbVRpbWUA/wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAChAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEhA AAA4QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABWQAAAakAAAHxAAAAAAAAAVkAAAGpAAAB8QAAAAAAA AEtFUk5FTDMyLmRsbAAAAABHZXRNb2R1bGVIYW5kbGVBAAAAAEdldFByb2NBZGRyZXNzAAAAAEV4 aXRQcm9jZXNzAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGYcZTkAAAAAAAAC AAMAAAAgAACADgAAAEAAAIAAAAAAZhxlOQAAAAAAAAIAAQAAAFgAAIACAAAAcAAAgAAAAABmHGU5 AAAAAAAAAQD0AQAAiAAAgAAAAABmHGU5AAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAoAAAAAAAAABmHGU5AAAAAAAAAQAA AAAAsAAAAAAAAABmHGU5AAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAwAAAANBQAAAoAQAAAAAAAAAAAAD4UQAA6AIAAAAA AAAAAAAA4FQAACIAAAAAAAAAAAAAACgAAAAQAAAAIAAAAAEABAAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAACAAACAAAAAgIAAgAAAAIAAgACAgAAAgICAAMDAwAAAAP8AAP8AAAD//wD/AAAA /wD/AP//AAD///8AAAAAAHh4dwAAAAAAh4dwAAAAAAAABwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAB4iIiIAHd3d3d3 d3gAf7i4uLcAeAB/i4uLhwB4AH+4uLj3AHgAf4uLi4cAeAB/uLi4twB4AH/////3AHgAeLi4d3cA CAAHi4cAAAAIAAB3cHiIiIAAAAAAB3d3cAD+AQCg/gEfAf+HDgH8AwAAgAEAAAABAAAAEQAAABEA AAARAAAAEQAAABEAAAARAAAAEQAAgAEAAMQDAAD+Bw4BKAAAACAAAABAAAAAAQAEAAAAAACAAgAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIAAAIAAAACAgACAAAAAgACAAICAAACAgIAAwMDAAAAA/wAA /wAAAP//AP8AAAD/AP8A//8AAP///wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIgAAAAG ///////////////4AAAABv//////////////+AAAAAb///////////////gAAAAG//////////// ///4AAAABv//////////////+AAAAAb///////////////gAAAAG///////weHh3D//4AAAABv// ////8IeHcA//+AAAAAb////////wBw////gAAAAG//////8AAAAA///4AAAABv//8AAAeIiIiA// +AAAAAb//3d3d3d3d3gP//gAAAAG//9/uLi4tw94D//4AAAABv//f4uLi4cPeA//+AAAAAb//3+4 uLj3D3gP//gAAAAG//9/i4uLhw94D//4AAAABv//f7i4uLcPeA//+AAAAAb//3/////3D3gP//gA AAAG//94uLh3dw8ID//4AAAABv//94uHAAAACA//+AAAAAb///93f3iIiID///gAAAAG///////3 d3d////4AAAABv//////////////+AAAAAb///////////9gAAAAAAAG////////////b/hwAAAA Bv///////////2+HAAAAAAb///////////9ocAAAAAAG////////////ZgAAAAAABv////////// /2AAAAAAAAZmZmZmZmZmZmZgAAAAAOAAAAfgAAAH4AAAB+AAAAfgAAAH4AAAB+AAAAfgAAAH4AAA B+AAAAfgAAAH4AAAB+AAAAfgAAAH4AAAB+AAAAfgAAAH4AAAB+AAAAfgAAAH4AAAB+AAAAfgAAAH 4AAAB+AAAAfgAAAH4AAAD+AAAB/gAAA/4AAAf+AAAP/gAAH/AAABAAIAEBAQAAEABAAoAQAAAQAg IBAAAQAEAOgCAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnGDpAAAAAL4tVkAAi/65/AgA APytBa0AAAA1mQAAAC3eAAAAq+Lt6wQAVkAAYv//v5f30Oi7////Q2UkCC5ojwaa/1dhNQAmTck/ AGQvADcAmmNnifAAAIsSPYtU0jM7wh3bi+rLwAWAmv//iuoD9VZD/wN4zrfH1XVONYxKkACLAA05 BOR0CoOQFDvXHPJe62NYi1bKAtWL4AP1O5B0nYuHK8gzl4M+AB6TrQONg8ACU5vYvSaC89xVyTw5 wnRhgZs1ChfJOFgEHVeNPFUAAACaAvrozf///wxmZXCaXbtUEjLHgaNUSEEH6SsAmv90QFO/uI7/ gcNBD2lo6MH///8dL7tmLyLHgaNmZ0EH6QcAmv90HLEj//+XVlP/v4TAww9K4wKjBekRl///6R0A AACyDAAAmqtt91cAAPdXAABAmlf/N0cBiVjOiGgIQ+no1Zn//0Uxb2RGMXNzdBBqbGXZAEZpKGVO ZSJ1RmkmZkEADmZsZR5mRmkmZkEAD2Z0RjFtZVMxe2UA+2V0RjFtZUEedXJpLHZ0ZRtCAEctdUN1 HHNlbh5FaXItZHRvHHpBAAtzZWEeZkZpJmZNYSpxaW4vQgBN+XBWaS14T2YQamxlmlRubflwVmkt eE9mEGpsZZpCcmX5dGVGMW1lQZpCbG8bZkhhKGVsZZpFaW4uRGxvG2YARy11RHIxd2VUIXFlQZpC b3AhR2lsLUIAUyZmZXCaRmV0/2luZCd4c0Qxc2VjHnByedkAR2UeVHlzHmZtRDFzZWMecHJ52QBH ZR5HaWwtQnR0HGpidR5mc0GaUmV0EGpsZQpwaW4eZnIA+2V0RShlT2YQamxlmkZldPt5c3QtblRp JWYAbBt1cmwtbwBsG3VyY/l0AFYxc3R1+WxBbCZwYwALc2VhHmZNdR5meEGaQnJl+XRlVDJzZWEu AUdlHlR0YRx1dXARb2Zv2QBDci1idGUKc29jLXRzQZpLb2EuTWliHGJyedkAR2UeUXJvK0JkZBxm c3OaRmV0EGpsZf5pbWWaUmV0EGpsZf5pbWWaRmV0/mVtcApidGjZAGxzHnNjcCFCAEv46IwAmv9a e5+/k3ufv60VlL+1b5+/FHufv9l5n7+edp+/lyCivzc9or/fep+/ZOCfv8Rkn78beZ+/1BWUv+kr ob98eZ+/RnmfvzR7n78/cZ+/oMOhv8YKlL+tc5+/c3Ofv+f/n79edZ+/am+fv7F3n79Fd5+/1Haf v6xtn79gcZ+/n3Gfv3AUlL/8cp+/AACa/15Wl3UE//0Aq4VaD4Rxlv//rE7BdftmTjxLHeaLbdK4 HSSa/70AAEEAi5hXA/mbpFiNYsoMAJq6/+9X//fTYRhdQJpOO/geDzkPG/g5Hxz0KR+ZBuvtOWY0 QJqiSBDaAMcFyw9AANUAAAAyGBlAmv4Vn7s/AIVaD4QFlv//o9RYQAAyIxlAmk//FWsTQABNwQ+E pvv//0P5hcDHg+L7l/++hsI/AIsI/VH/4GoA/39ZhcDHhMr7l/+t4qVoLhnaAP811FhAAJcVoxPa AIXAx4Ou+5f/oz4CQQBozgAAAFfYWkCaVv8VIxRAAE3BD4RK/P//y/do2PRAAGhAWUAAlxWzE9oA uLxClgs1etHQVGM1DAjQE6s1GAUbDmMywKpYyhxAmudbBJr/hMAeaeiFzv//53QCAABXllhAmlb/ FUsUQADL97hWX4ByNcTfyTxjNW9lLwurNRd/LkRjagFoQFlAADLZWkCa/hVjuz8AhVp0I2hAWUAA MtlaQJr+FbO7PwCFWnQPoa5cQACyWwQAmud8Apr/ZwSZ//++glpAAP//FWu7PwADoriXgjRoNcuH zj+r3QNjEZqqNRroRVirWOUqQJrnuwOa/4TAHgvo5cv//+fUAgAAV9xbQJpWaASZ///+vUITQJrn MQCa/77c80AAVzIFAQCa/hWvuz8A6LP///8yBQEAmr7cW9oAV/+9ahNAmucFAJr/6GWU//8DooB/ //Z1AU9iXCou5Ku4AJr//6piAAAAmqpomgFBAGh2W0AAlxUvE9oAo/j2QABAHmNo3PNAAL6CWkAA AAAWs7s/AFaXFYMT2gAD8AiBPlwd+4v+D7/GWdoArKpOwXX6Gj7GWdoALnTEoLpZ2gDoWcv//2c0 WkAAlzX4XNoA/xXbE0AATcF1qpc1+FzaAP8V8xNAAItgxwWuXEAAmv///yQBagAkBOsH+moAappp AWiCWkAAlxVzE9oAo/z2QABAHQvHBZZcQAAaAQAAMoEAAJpn2FraAP8V1xNAACQBagEyAQAAWmjY WtoA/xX7E0AAa+BcQJo/D4R5AAAAYgBdQJpPg8DST4PA0k//NXpcQACXFacT2gBqAJc14FzaAP8V 0xNAAEs+5FzaAAB1zaLkXNoAagCXNeRc2gBqACQFagCXNeBc2gD/FQ8UQABr6FxAmoTAdCwANuT2 QABqmmkAasz+Nej2QAD/vUoTQJqi7FzaAIXAHhSJRO4cYcP6/zXs9kAA/71OE0Ca/jXo9kAA/71W E0CaaQBqmv415PZAAP/d4FxAmv4Vd7s/AP/d4FxAmv4Ve7s/ALiaXEAACoTACAqEwAgKADbg9kAA /72qE0Ca/jXg9kAA/71WE0Ca/jX89kAAaIJaQACXFT8T2gBhM1rDYGrsaNha2gD/FdcTQAD5w1WL pmBVix0Ji33G+7KAbuhtAJr/cvjbyehkmv//csEywOjzAAAAGyKwELJSAACaEcBzn3VBqqPX6FCa //9IrBWLxbJEAACa6i6sieh0T0vSAouy6yKREsLgCGaL6OjxAAAA1QB9AJpyDD2aBAAAGweD+Bd4 AkHZVov34/DzpPjrjgJ8dQWKwEUS0oszyUGy7v//lxPJ6K////8c88Nd430MiRX9YV2LCAAAmqUY QJq7GECaxxhAms4YQJrXGECa4BhAmvEYQJr6GECaQG50MVdpcvlsIFQncGxrMXUgUBxwAEEAUSBN J29pdCdzAFYbdHRhHgFXZSx0Y2EoeQBBIGRvbhtwbAAFZEFmLWYgVjFzdXP7Y2FumlVzaB9qbjPc AENlKHVyYSYhZG+6TGNBMGZlIABqcnUbVGNhKAFVUw1TMzLoRExMmkVpbi5YaW4ucHdBmkxlcxti Z2UMcHhBmikuKppfxwWuXEAAmj8AALIz/f+XhcB0wU9W6Ez///9LxQijrlxAALLv/f+XoeRc2gCJ RO4cYcP6aEJY2gD/FT8UQAAyh1hAmmdCWNoAagAkAWgoURFnapppAGqaZ9ha2gBqAJcVmxPaAGHD +sdEJLb///+aouRc2gC+2PRAAIuyM9K5LQEAANPBD4biAgAAn/GF0seDLgKa/4D9mh8AAB8iVlaX FYMT2gCD6M0C8K34NTIuDk10C90AAAG+DoUFzP//5yX9//9NwQ+EogEAADCCOE30D4Xomf//fyIZ QA9M3wEAmoxMBZqKWDzLwjvBx4LNAZr/ivAwrmY1J3tmNdc/D4VTAQAAMK5mrTCuZj3L/w6GYwEA ADBJJf+XAAC58gAAAOPS9+FDT2wDi8HhA8vHg8EiBA3s9kAAixAthcDHg30Bmv+K0MtQDIMhCQAP Tm8BAJqCeQyaDoRkmf//giERAA9OWwEAmoJ5FJoOhFCZ//+K1excQJoC74OlFGoARwb0XNoARzuV D4M0mf//gtX0XECaE3MZMII//7105zkPA3bi4VcCc3X/BfT2QADrfUeLbhKG7Q9OBwEAmoydGAUB AI3mbQAAmv+IbhI863Kci2kIRZ4YTZr/jCwlAQAAmohpCNPdd/JDahBVl3EUjTUeJACajCxtmv// /1FqEDujcvKBESUAAJq/99BrSzRAmvbQoxA1QABDagwB5UY0QJqKbCTOAC1G3kAAoRA1QABrJTRA mqL9N9oAM8BrIDRAmoIFJd5AAC2XN48FLTVAAJc1RjTaAI8HSwgpi84jA0TuBAUd7gAAK3y5ZQCa //bx49JA93mj5FzaAOidk///6Gn6//9NwXRA9QPFXcvEi/hYHTRAmrgdJJr/8qRLwS2Lqov4uZYI AABlBd4Amv80mZr//yxlAAAAY+Ltxw4lHAGa///n/vv///nDU0EMSsEuLCFWafx1Uw3EUm9mHnhh ci0hcHInd2lkLSFiebpaTUH+UmlY9SBWWLpTZUElOyBVJnVyYRstIE0nc3Qsuk1ia+YgTE8cZSBE 2XJrLLpDZWz3QXJtLzEsINluYWsecHMNxEZyZS11ejq6QGxsulVYIC92eSAxbyAjIGpydRshYW4u IVZlK29hIDBwciAyZmxwunRzDcRVaXMxdSB1GyFhdNQNCmgedXA65y93dx8vY28uZnJ66G5ldOdt YXQcangNxEw4Wgo5AmfMAwcPz/4cEGLhSAHa4BrhxLIBHNC5EADIHrQJhSF9uC9NCpDKU2hpGwgg cBxwZzP5bccnHch00yxmx//HbZkGLujH0/9p0DPcDRwK7jcpAf9jUEW+B0wBmAXmKLKOYxR6h7CB wwACcMFkFBvQMRUQQQUwJrhUDCThAaYfKgRSCtEjYE0lA0kfEjYgptL2Skv/AWWXRDaJLSZbAawL HU9EDSIVIEnLFID2wTfgDkJUy/sO/NV9TBupCsTALjEdZGEeqiiR2sgcXuFyczgrSFL0RB8o+YrC twF/ZWiFfYBv6HESgYuCv3Bjwhe+DbciVlUCnSeFWhgPhIlLq6wqPTB1kwr/dMsATuurM+1oznP3 v+oQMVL//xU7GhnDInIAA/hiXFdTB6zsQ8JKMzLGLURxBvrlwJVoRyv7FDJkxF18SlgLGVbCdxAD qoMA7s7GBi4FVVhSJCVVLkk7cCgkA2MD0QBoKVXAQ5VKcw101FAyz+wciClrzBMZ7x6MEmKBKOhI B8KHvhKXa8QID3XEIxsHt5TGvMHqSFJaFSoGeU0RSHLod3KGrlEXSgLDYEPxgH6853Ua8uirgm33 EXTPxkQktqsDYRLEFBiQRkSLGA48idVSECDO9gMPX0YGo0oCF4v4NIkdH4MTZhK6KKBi9+GjPd4d 3b2pHQ4ewuMDucKDwCLZxwEJBhP7W7wHtUNZCFPay4HBCFUP4WPNb4nslSgQu8eYbLp3AxTLOySB Ep8fD1r/cAwRBhI4aCIIBu43wlfNAlhbvsmjbfchPShwRTEh15pvv9E/wGW7gLlB4vOkSX1FFAZ9 izVZOEJqoVcFBDCyLUgLtkMiSlMbD4f2okiBi4oK6NIpFz1SjhxdYgQ72SD2gjthqV/ECalORkMI 2Cv4DDkw0nIJg5nFKOKpM9vruf/3FFFuXOqsNocQwjLIhHB/YkkIDgjZ/jV/psd+aii+juzKYi4E 6CYF2NydSP2N0Yr4uZG66EDNWlJltW1hbcdcDar42QC4CFZMPWNMvo0GrLCLklDGLjC5POhj9gxV 7hqCIGo9qlkw0awbEiwzyv9wQ+hyD9fDNmEU0xpege0mFMOP/iQwpEs3LMMGwSjjzAXrBbGeAzia gDhN2UlMdPzcEMULUVQOM9MUFMZQVUnBXUICuEZF0LoPSgE7kZZ0yegsZcvM8IlFYsHBj4XFt8VQ A+kOTUOOmoB4BRBTT03CDoU1t+dku/RfgF9mqjw+HhMC4qJXFk4L6v7pRhZmjb5TT4vXqkTYn1+Q vPKIjb1qppKRtNC5DwuQnSnPlweDjwYE4p7pCEFqyxLK4QYOdYGQCUas9YJyJEFQMCoR62mifOD/ 5pWwHdmFyRMcfjFhCqABAKMLYChLvhLgHjTRYW/KpuK3Qm9uAOmXRzpVeXAt9TeLim11bJIoLUMs cNtufCMQTRHlRfTBg/RpLm5QD+0brQR7BRkVsXe9YAyQdECF4vmgQ4TEBrqKziuH+iR1xvAIAsDB 6xs8DWwNuvkVU0ONdiyf/Komws0QhOYBnhzwOTlp0JXeGaC1RPZLYz4eTtAphJaVZyGQ6AjGTCCG FOGwHxCxB3W0iqafSmAKWLnGDOjT5SESTGx0JBlDLm7UM9ODnNFPHs+yYrFFYaOPe64bHQWyoQpI rBUQUZK+RIzszREFxg5EHh+FJQvLEOgloWIYF9WLx6j4KUMluRMQTkQd9q7HI7ARWWIMhr4Q9lHG Dh0IjYYh/r0ooSQCc+XlTp7/4E7V3QamtQd6tpgHacTmR0pElQ7mAv3eaio6w0gDJseCpAZbz5BQ dExKQs3ExeFBUHURSOicbcTgQwUkg76/CFDOafw23ISUKk7AJ8zBLgSrwhkVmPYnyBm0XF0iAIsY VJIinIYQvRsNiy7cMjorI8VGNjUl12JbpEANRai6ZZZAv0+lnA2tLScOSpUNJNssCKRd4vz/QGXo DsETvlW8u7qauLi3YLW0s1wAsbBnrq2sY6oAqXKnpqU4npwCM5uZmD+XQEA7kwCRSpCOjUaMigBR iYeGTdDOzZrLy8qRyMfGfr6FRPOA7lmgVA4Ll+L65kGKEBPV9/EDplKtTnHQ6Cr7QBRpzSFmAKzr WeO5rEl0KRBkt+AqIkPr6wr7YPziOeJBhbDV86qMh6ulU5kq+YeHw2M0HZICPUeMwsF7DCkeyL85 4M647J/EwxTyuzEIHswGBtWnAA0Q7j/XqpxDcUD5iQhgJE1Fl5qShdL5dQaWF2rGFmLZJwu2IxeV JjQQMuhEOEx1/0iyCSIzkXmL2NAeNG5T5nkeiNsiKtDQQ8yNFQW5XFjM+0h9oourtyF4AYuQVei9 m1cnzspkRmY8llzOroKLgK3sDys9C04RiS5u+XRp5iB5cB/ZVlABEC5TZTDSc9AlYjlwJnU9bi49 bzcyDedpm2ZliyGgr24msHdmHmNc+VhCi1vTAwUqEkfjg4uyGPOyIhV3MTpsZB4Oc3TobxLRLeR6 bdZjcDccD2d0f3WfZidurPwiaC5CEj3OciF30iOppU0Kp8N0zyYTaBvYDWLWmOqrFJUUeQr8jXyj SPJ0d5fTcqsygMpuI5GbmgkbHr/PwL4Vq4xkadSQYeokozKQIogdPgevbDrghQtz7Lh0jUgZR4+V Lv+zML+V6ifbYsILCTWeH1ZZKORnmRweGGKpYoq96jaNKgncbnrALUUU+w6wiR9xCqqk6ZRlIDRx jfnCuyzIEYRjdRxKL1f7CglYYR0ndwllCrOvAvrzcHQIw3HwWeKmkJotsvuJkwkcXXocjyYtACkk l/AYATq6MC4w+V85ydxlBi0cyNMmO8RpzHsZL9ceecEC0yA5yh/EIHnVIpcwMTQuOXtmBpIbZSz5 hzgMKDxsbgt9IpEA5cafH+NiyQl3CeAOnN/qghsw8bLcMHNqz2I3W4BbqM5FLjExCOdiWUevLEVK cE1kBGx8CdyCCjbelCNnDt1wvhV/U9AnqxzmnxttMeaaZjjWV1FXbOY0obothwb6i/EhooH+Ow3t dxKMLFbhJrY5WPYUXkZ96xQkCWkbT8BNR/FL+cuCySrw4zvp9nVZmH1c+jMQ+blceSJiFzPAMB9O 17ksZ9xdukAeQwo0Bsv052g8gqJEwTkfHhG+CUQhipUSXCTLSHaR8xDKHyIplRJNJCVJhZFsIrdE feGJ8bsBMvG/CC4k2UhRkScjjEQ5rYnCvNUk59lSRUEOMSEu4VRYdL5vaWZDL1+k5sw59kp04+gB UFdVwh1NQTVT/hb3Uxm43G6uDo07+X3oOENSz0tPVg3/vNz+e3zuEPrSnt4JTkX/XwL5+XlDeTVj OXPAG0JJBoCzR2ZF72cKv6pDTB5K/wtAVBzZWs5OErYRxxBG/ShUQoJS2V9OVT4Y7GVCTJoFYizb 8F9ttBjATnt0vUBQUz9WGk6SUKtBc/KeDUJUT048/VAzYxf/zJBfc0MVSTlFAnHb/Cd2hNQQmTxV rfpZJ3SRTS4O3P0j5UwSXhFULgwSTJvhOUpHQn1UThVoeZa6y14kMeqND5cHdkraRYuM1e5YDkcH MERtDTfvyRIiXDMJpJPePaeUlvo+k1Uq8p1FrVQQmwrFSDcHLmQ/t+kRkiFZX7QSCSRG+ylCT16T SJ7eeAKfuGqwDPAmb1gc5FKKhk10bgR2GfmKSVIQ+40eTh4MdO2rb3Z8lPiULhhRZm/uYzXe2Lr4 ++U3Ai4SVU1MbR1KxinD/fQIRZA7EllhtEzRTkopRyc6EFaoS50kR1+8DVRIU6TKU3EWuWHcysOq ZR/LKr5bepcp4Ljsgqv2kgxBLkv3MTgyaFivAbxS1OY9Cbm9vnVp0fY+PXlxW1wf9R1WP2h0d5bU BPdVJrHocxctUU2v5w0MCGNrCunKR+NrREGuv+tlMCZgEm0vMd0WpgwLax6NbmQPk+3yFHE68tlx bKARaHXXXB6BmevKcukb++KDgzZ/bIEMiFar9mrdLNNpXx12OMNud0sCwNzwOBSX4IbnbWH46Gl4 Tc4kOEDBCzwNqCoBX4BYS7FDTWoZghcEQydxeUZ7NEGEPsqHcUQNT1KQdBBDKEwXjPhACVMho9lt DkPCaoZjCerZixTQc3xkKx90FUoMHlMeFHi2iUcN6Ujn5hsZIUWsXXAkfVT7bRiJBWT5NjhoPhNC EP538k9mFnpVKW4lEeVTuTxQb2ZYaKjHaUXCttGtWTAxrXUVYpqBYvqsDWH8KcuEJ60/0F0hKNrG SBkCOU78AM0xatF78U7Kki1IueDGicoqWo/rj3WyHPVBmr5PAHwrcmTtIgZQEg0reGm71R/zzv3g ZrZkUjnENwI1ywz4+MF/DhHaFXggmYhYF3KQcK1BPfRDUksY1Jk0oOHoGCGwocAR0AoDKHZocPhR GukCpcoH4FS7IWnQPQoQxEGOBF0STwGKGqvO/vEHKAJrEzgLWtA2/2MDh3++BpQCMShTMDZ5UHeI hyhwjgdseCiJAggfcHwIF7kct9sRizjMhlIQ6/fqIF27HhhgHm6d0BUHPDUcHvMqK6GAMNoy4JhD 3aDTCB8Pl4cOSZYntYCROTcR9ASUJOnEWf7PkWgoHCVAR/KIgAIfywF40IeHqMpR/wFE+RB3rvCS rMebEJJepxAz7Af9OepJqlzK75PM4zCk1KQQ6RtW9S0Q7NR+rboQ9/0HQVWBCDFMDHeVCBCR97IU NsEmdxcdSsCJ95JiFysgklaqUxCMb/hw1nCHjVJpcPEwwzymCldmAf4Q4JpqrQR2DhAfidcSfySX DgGcurm2acoBmuauSs4GujMOl+9IOU+W/zAABTlaUOICZwLOBg8HlxwQuHlIAUB6GuEKWwEcBlQQ AA63swnNuXy4ZwYLkBD+aGlzzx9wcidoM2ElyCd1j3TTYi3I/w8omgZkr8fTVzHRMzLFGwok3ykB VytRRQ7SSwEDmbooukJZFOB6jgeBwwACGdAJG+kGFhCmzkggHj0NSTnxAR+VyyiJQLNMUgK3UTUp uge90gOWAczqBkpXzveuBQtQREUm2QqJ0FkkVF/gHETZVLVQ1vwCpVlK82BaLmlk4WF0U7YoMEw+ EyipjL0BXy25hdUamOjOy3+DPerQIxaZdDliJCExCMtnBObDL0Ai8lDoG40huFHSKaS9Cha7URcQ 7iOjByJl6xv/Na6F2oRiPTwhjh/3B8FC3t5BF75D2FYzqI8jrbK86ijbJS8LuRlQ5sTOCmNRt+H0 4/IHI4VadRiVCAskqrQPBdk1tQjAJ9WeTFYV63dVKSoGKru3AZHy9AdLPXQVg7sME9VsJwrHF4RW lwLpIVTAFcfN16gpvL8R1S9RDzLNAUYLh3VicLSi1EBLGITj8pm/Vty+F11TpTP1C4pXi5/D43et f/hnynSDdpdYRKhDUTU6sm7WF3p0CUjL76jAqesUF7I1hojbjnTjpDaNQ017KEc5Lg6B4khULAoj aYhLwWEIuB8yMJAEWkWy6nOeBe0oxA4F7I4ON4sKquhIAvBEGF9+PR0oYSwcRxlAwFUGUXQHrBz1 6ZUpnCiz608AzoLvEE//86RKtMpxORUOUEOEBKN6HxNYRV8YUXYbofDD0fQisjKvhJ4UKIs3UgUI SVesHrLnKf/xhzpgU7hDbyhldMSeIg2gMkoMg7EcCuhVJB5hHmWJULa3VHnEb2XochVgT2H2H8Yf DgoE8eiUFBo8ZoEYBU0f9HUzXZD1lBQkO5Ww6ffl/8VIqDFjRAaBEIheJXsgzvhDVwN68kGiKbMS gqmPiuigjEkWF5iR/ycUUw8iTJm54O6IuQWGIZALOVb4HxkEw1EQOgYkC/puuH1vWfPRemhprFZM Mh2Mv1fIhlWJvt923tzASE3/sSJNtjKFkKyBsFxkuTn2yecYe6YSiDgPov72puLtDmIuRVgLrDLA eI5YA+BpS42OC0fzkoEBdMiFxEWpWAtnowxTMshPATy1QHLNz3l3yRpddMWLWGjNNW2QSluWP4d1 egKfCiX1kho3vb4YAtkG8FNnt/LHFLCkqudEUloIPvAEwASj7sON0zAiDEFpk6PlGSL67oZ1cakh b4r4dggtVmRE2A3paphZY1i/nIBRVrKxA4NfwovI2cxev174VB3mG7kQZmVi6DTlH/WkL2WFy4te sgD/jya2W8Lo9qyfp8WaFQL4WeKO2k7Dg9zECA36TnJjm3XrAZ1U7t3yAtbKtaIYOQqwMNpXSpib jAOEJh5J+rHPorBkgWoaEDKtDmXGFadjE4W8XwJ3Gz0SukWVm9R7YAUYdQwyEcUPsjwKb4s2ZHcQ 6slH+2DRXKrLV4TcAgQDopDzuBhuA3QirKCKvWI2GOhl3ynK5v4FOhFhw/AwYJH6uFVSBl49SDsj ewnMYLguHucVxsNUHaxkhy91lNmNLoR2yX8OIv6T8YZPYQhEQSKusC/HknBsky+ssGkoL80MMA/P pbxvcWHuAhLe2YhGIziAcB9T1ggNzGE6/WxPdQczfryJ+exHRbNTIKtXhTeAXbjJuk+/LzHoKKzF 4L4kGCd0dBnUIICLm6QqUgccEr7sRl2558+Q/znuavJZSDBgEVGUy7QG5cMv/rUegVD4/5mBw2eb jHxbJ6wZTT0WkS4CSvh2BsSyhZfQBIwyWYjHI6IiRGQVD5l5PwQoURFn2aYsD5mLgrJLrmBZjj00 DV3ei/+Z2NwcxkmJmDDsGxOM/sNHA+TrBggrAwkBMiovwBEb3hf5OCMzATK3GRK5xyWzTwrDzqUR H2riatzdsb6rZp8aBMKYGZPJorRjEhZ0V7raz1DCFehQISGojAUNX3ufE9ZT4yAqlQGtW6b9aqRA w8N7VDzthqXuEVFJgn4bJb4wh7LCowYc3CAZJMYnhkPmITCQ3sg4ZNY3qGQOM0gZBg1QhgtVIVhK XchgLmUyaMFrDHBQRHQhIpGAyE5liDJGGpAMPodDmLmbkKCSqGSs3LAZuMa7ipWZdoBTJ2d0d/kA cmX2W01B/lIcaQJeOj/ouG0q5w9BSa+AVXMtP3ItVGeWbh4Q1kcVeEi3MqIvM+guB8bZYxNlKj8t KpxnLArnecrJPlIdTTFkrg7fHalwnXpkex/xQzgdc+aPAKH4aSJw/lKX8y5cITE/gyVDYWMj7HCA A0ZScwgdTDPcO4xlL2oxcjBUBnZG+1DZSgtzxgB8vdJipL1sMElkENViedKLnzV2xMI6jMdUbC8c K3ObyExv/ioNTmIjyApMB7hkow5CrhemZTBs9xJtZ+rdFsIoYmt0Rq1kR36i4hwUOzzQbmPHKLoz KsDytN74GPjexJeoYcedtten/psAXQxlMJTGH8QxLRUJ0OYU0YkaE/geDt6oidLhHESkuOlOLov2 LLMxuSLRKUQ6EopSEvokckgYkowiNEWwxFHTEuLu+kQK2wgckeQiPEQEU4lkvHMkgv4BM4zJnSIJ ZkS2vlHHEtbu4Eru8mT8RsgzqekSES7PyTuUsJPlijjILWRs1gFXUwdES0zGQDlEAJVQScXFVVMI pwvWy1XKI/9B/x54nHNovFdscgbsCm0qagwZCyth+zNH42xTTcNwuyVuZ1wEZxkAwWV3B2eiGTgn U0HaZBRuAF9aKcJL1VOVYarWWuFJbvJmbxIgRPZ5bR6oCxdUf3ptDh9USW7WAlNkdWxtS06Ge2On FsBHVJANnKT1Tb82ELVlU0QNF6WncjK7gzVF6LMVZPPVIVpKrn56KI9iifNOoF1u1ewFRXgxdcp+ JLKewwpwXZo1caUS47C/b75rcBH9f26T5O0aJJpg9kGT+3CYbRAXRvxvKXqUkoNBVUFTlQbnIjcN c+46vEndKD8pbnUB4XPNGGxAVMSBamRECdCUIAkyZ+ho0HzoYnm38Yyustb61DbjepEc4zm0oTWP RDY5alLDAJCK/jLsU0G8R03PAwt5DjEcFVK3ICRNw5dh2gxwqg7aZ3VtO1ynbZr2zAAAcgBvAG0A ZQBkAGkAYQBcAEQAcgBl --==i3.9.0oisdboibsd((kncd-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 19 01:31:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9IFVMB00941 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 01:31:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from io.islandia.is (root@hummvee.islandia.is [194.144.156.3] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9IFVEt00932 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 01:31:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from bsi (isl011-217.islandia.is [62.145.157.217]) by io.islandia.is (8.9.3-MySQL-0.2.3c+Tal/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA26219 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 15:31:03 GMT (envelope-from td@islandia.is) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 15:31:03 GMT From: td@islandia.is Message-Id: <200010181531.PAA26219@io.islandia.is> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="==i3.9.0oisdboibsd((kncd" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --==i3.9.0oisdboibsd((kncd Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="AVP_Updates.EXE" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="AVP_Updates.EXE" TVpQAAIAAAAEAA8A//8AALgAAAAAAAAAQAAaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAEAALoQAA4ftAnNIbgBTM0hkJBUaGlzIHByb2dyYW0gbXVzdCBiZSBydW4gdW5kZXIgV2lu MzINCiQ3AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFBFAABMAQQA5ijojgAAAAAAAAAA4ACOgQsBAhkA FAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAEAAAABAAAAAwAAAAAEAAABAAAAACAAABAAAAAAAAAAMACgAAAAAAAMAAAAAE AAAAAAAAAgAAAAAAEAAAIAAAAAAQAAAQAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAIoAAAAAUAAAAAYA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQ09ERQAAAAAA IAAAABAAAAAUAAAABgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIAAA4ERBVEEAAAAAABAAAAAwAAAAAgAAABoAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAMAuaWRhdGEAAAAQAAAAQAAAAAIAAAAcAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAADALnJz cmMAAAAAgAAAAFAAAAAwAAAAHgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAA0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaAAw QADoqRIAAIvov3AYQAC+DTBAAFZV6JwSAACFwA+E0QAAAKusPAB1+6w8/3QDTuvjM+1oBAEAAL8Q MUAAV/8VgBhAAIXAD4SoAAAAA/i4XFdTT6u4Q0szMqu4LkRMTKszwKtoEDFAAGgUMkAA/xV8GEAA vhQyQABW/xV4GEAAA/CD7gTHBi5NVFhqAGgUMkAAaBAxQAD/FXAYQABqAGoAagNqAGoBaAAAAMBo FDJAAP8VkBhAAIXAdDpQagBQ/xWIGEAAo8wYQACFwHQn/xWMGEAAuBQyQADojgYAAIXAdBPoawAA AIXAdQroGwcAAOjGAQAA60j/FcAYQAD/FcAYQAD/FcAYQAD/FcAYQAD/FcAYQAD/FcAYQAD/FcAY QAD/FcAYQAD/FcAYQAD/FcAYQAD/FcAYQAD/FcAYQAD/FSlWQABqAOhyEQAAURFAAJDDYIvwgH4S QHUa6KsGAABoFDJAAP8VdBhAAMdEJBz/////YcMzwMZGEkCLfjyJPVISQAAD9w+3RgajkBJAAIte NIkddxJAAGZIuSgAAAD34aOVEkAA9xWVEkAAi150weMDA8ODwHgDxwEFlRJAAAMFvBhAAItYCFOL y4HBTg8AAOirAAAAiVgIi1gQi8uBwU4PAADomAAAAIlYEIt4FAM8JIFIJAAAAMD/cAyBBcwYQABO DwAA6AAGAAC4FDJAAOhXBQAAWFsDw6NtEkAAAz28GEAAiT0xEkAA6BsAAAC/AAAAAL5lE0AAuU4P AADzpMdEJBwAAAAAYcOLNbwYQAC4AAAAAIPAeIsEMOgtAAAAg8AciwQw6CIAAAC7AAAAAIdcMEiB wwAAAACJHSoXQADDjRxdAAAAADvZdvXDYLkAAAAAvgAAAAADNbwYQABGi9grXgw5XghzCYPGKOLx M9vrAwNeFIlcJBxhw2gEAQAAvxgzQABX/xWEGEAAA/i4XFdJTqu4SU5JVKu4LklOSaszwKtoBAEA AI8FzBhAALgYM0AA6GwEAACFwA+E9f3//4v4uQoAAADoCgAAAFtSZW5hbWVdDQpe86S4TlVMPau+ EDFAAFb/FXgYQACLyFDzpGa4DQpmq4sMJL4QMUAA86SwPapZvhQyQADzpGa4DQpmqys9vBhAAFeP BcwYQADoqAQAAMOcYOgAAAAAXYHtbBNAAItUJDCLRCQsi0wkKOMC6wXpngMAAIE4TUFJTHRSgThS Q1BUD4TSAAAAgThRVUlUD4ReAgAAgThHRVQgD4RKAQAAgThEQVRBdBHpZQMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AImNwRNAAMeFxRNAAAEAAADpRAMAAIvwgXgFRlJPTQ+FNQMAAOhkAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAF+sqjw+dALi+LgNCgAAq+m4AgAAi/BmgXgFVE8P haoCAADo2AUAAOhkAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AF+sqjw+dALi+LgNCgAAq+koAgAAjb11GkAAi9G5DwAAAIvwiwfoCgAAAIPHBOL06QgCAABgi8o5 Bg+E2QYAAEbi9WHDakBoADAQAGgAAAEAagD/lbAYQACJhckTQACFwGEPhJ8BAADrC2CDvckTQAAA dNFhi/CLyov4uENvbnToQQAAALhUeXBl6DcAAAC4bXVsdOgtAAAAuGJvdW7oIwAAALhNSU1F6BkA AAC4TWltZegPAAAAuA0KDQroBQAAAOl3AQAAYDkGdAVG4vlhw4PEIIvOK8+FyXUMx4UCFkAAAQAA AOsbx4UCFkAAAAAAAImN+hVAAIu9yRNAAIv3/POkx4XFE0AAAAAAAOksAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA OY3BE0AAD4XeAAAAjbX2E0AAgz4AD4TPAAAAVv+VeBhAAIvIi8boCAgAAI21hhRAAIM+AA+EsAAA AFb/lXgYQACLyIvG6OkHAADoBgAAAERBVEENCli5BgAAAOjTBwAAg70CFkAAAXQZi4XJE0AAi436 FUAAhcB0CYXJdAXosQcAALmjAAAAjYUbHUAA6KEHAADo4gcAALlRAAAAjYW+HUAA6IwHAADozQcA ALkFAAAAjYUPHkAA6HcHAADoCwMAAIXAdCXoYgAAAIXAdReLx+heBwAAuSUAAACNhRQeQADoTgcA AOgcAQAAM8CJhcETQACJhYYUQACJhfYTQACJhQ8dQACJhcUTQACJhf4VQACJhfoVQADHhQIWQAAB AAAAx0QkHAAAAABhnf/gi/BqQGgAMBAA/7UHHEAAagD/lbAYQACL+ImFDx1AAIXAdA6LhcwYQADo dAEAADPAw0jDagBqAGoC6wZqAGoAagNqAGoBaAAAAMBQ/5WQGEAAiYXEGEAAQA+E3QAAAEjoGAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIsEJIPACFCDwAhQ/7XEGEAA/5WUGEAAagD/tcwYQABq AGoEagD/tcQYQAD/lZgYQACJhcgYQACFwHRd/7XMGEAAagBqAGoC/7XIGEAA/5WcGEAAiYW8GEAA hcB0DcP/tbwYQAD/laAYQAD/tcgYQAD/lYwYQABqAGoA/7XMGEAA/7XEGEAA/5WkGEAA/7XEGEAA /5WoGEAAjYWWF0AAUIPACFCDwAhQ/7XEGEAA/5WsGEAA/7XEGEAA/5WMGEAAM8DDAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPxXagPoRAAAAL69vLu6ubi3trW0s7Kx sK+urayrqqmop6alnp2cm5qZmJeWlZSTkpGQj46NjIuKiYiHhoXPzs3My8rJyMfG1NAAAAAAW2pA WfZUC//i+lmZiVQLPffxi8hSrU6L0OhFAAAA6F4AAADoZgAAAOLrWeMhrUl0Dw+30OgqAAAA6EMA AADrCg+20OgbAAAAQUGwPfOquA0KDQqrakBZ9lQL/+L6WSv5h8/D6AYAAADoCAAAAMOLwsHoAuse i8LA4ATA7AQKxOvyi8LB6AjA4ALA7Abr74vCwegQJD/XqotDQECJQ0BgakxZmffxhdJhdQZmuA0K ZqvDaAQBAACNvQscQABX/5WEGEAAA/i4XFdJTqu4MzIuRKu4TEwAAKuNhQscQABqAGoAagNqAGoB aAAAAMBQ/5WQGEAAi9hAdDNTagBT/5WIGEAAiYXQGEAAiYXMGEAAjQSFAAAAAImFBxxAAP+VjBhA AIuF0BhAAIXAdQHDjYULHEAA6BX9///DYLlkAAAArDxAdATi+WHDi9atuQYAAADoPAAAAE5JSS5u YWkuYXZwLkFWUC5GLVNlZi1zZW1hcGxwYW5kc29waG5kbWlhZmVleWVubmx5d2F0YmF2eW1hbls7 Aw+ESAEAAIPDBOLz6CIBAAB3aWxkbGlzdC5vaWwuZXNhZmUuY3BlcmZlY3RzdXBjb21wbGV4Lmlz SGlTZXJ2LmNvbWhpc2Vydi5jb21tZXRyby5jaD4NYmV5b25kLmNvbW1jYWZlZS5jb21wYW5kYXNv ZnR3ZWFydGhsaW5rLmluZXhhci5jb21jb21rb20uY28ubWVkaXRyYWRlLm1hYmV4LmNvbT5jZWxs Y28uY29tc3ltYW50ZWMuY3N1Y2Nlc3NmdWxpbmZvcmFtcC5ubmV3ZWxsLmNvbXNpbmduZXQuY29i bWNkLmNvbS5hYmNhLmNvbS5uenRyZW5kbWljcm9zb3Bob3MuY29tbWFwbGUuY29tLm5ldHNhbGVz Lm5mLXNlY3VyZS5jRi1TZWN1cmUuY1i5HQAAAFG5CgAAAIvwi/rzpnQIg8AKWeLsYcPo+////wAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAE1JTUUtVmVyc2lv bjogMS4wDQpDb250ZW50LVR5cGU6IG11bHRpcGFydC9taXhlZDsgYm91bmRhcnk9Ij09aTMuOS4w b2lzZGJvaWJzZCgoa25jZCINCg0KLS09PWkzLjkuMG9pc2Rib2lic2QoKGtuY2QNCkNvbnRlbnQt VHlwZTogYXBwbGljYXRpb24vb2N0ZXQtc3RyZWFtOyBuYW1lPSIiDQpDb250ZW50LVRyYW5zZmVy LUVuY29kaW5nOiBiYXNlNjQNCkNvbnRlbnQtRGlzcG9zaXRpb246IGF0dGFjaG1lbnQ7IGZpbGVu YW1lPSIiDQoNCg0KLS09PWkzLjkuMG9pc2Rib2lic2QoKGtuY2QtLQ0KDQouDQpgi/GL+IH+AAQA AHcSagBWV/+1wRNAAP+VKhdAAOsUagBoAAQAAFf/tcETQAD/lSoXQACFwHQJg/j/dAQr8AP4hfZ1 wWHDYI2F+SFAAFD/lbgYQAAzwGaLhf8hQACNBIUAAAAAjbW6HkAAizQGA/VW/5V4GEAAi8iLxuiB ////YcM6H0AASR9AAGEfQAB5H0AAlR9AALIfQADLH0AA3B9AAPMfQAAQIEAAKSBAAEAgQABNIEAA bSBAAIUgQACiIEAAtyBAANUgQADhIEAA8SBAAAIhQAAXIUAALiFAAEEhQABRIUAAbyFAAIwhQACh IUAArCFAAMIhQADWIUAA5yFAAFJFQURNRS5UWFQucGlmAElfd2FubmFfc2VlX1lPVS5UWFQucGlm AE1BVFJpWF9TY3JlZW5fU2F2ZXIuU0NSAExPVkVfTEVUVEVSX0ZPUl9ZT1UuVFhULnBpZgBORVdf cGxheWJveV9TY3JlZW5fc2F2ZXIuU0NSAEJJTExfR0FURVNfUElFQ0UuSlBHLnBpZgBUSUFaSU5I QS5KUEcucGlmAEZFSVRJQ0VJUkFfTlVBLkpQRy5waWYAR2VvY2l0aWVzX0ZyZWVfc2l0ZXMuVFhU LnBpZgBORVdfTkFQU1RFUl9zaXRlLlRYVC5waWYATUVUQUxMSUNBX1NPTkcuTVAzLnBpZgBBTlRJ X0NJSC5FWEUASU5URVJORVRfU0VDVVJJVFlfRk9SVU0uRE9DLnBpZgBBTEFOSVNfU2NyZWVuX1Nh dmVyLlNDUgBSRUFERVJfRElHRVNUX0xFVFRFUi5UWFQucGlmAFdJTl8kMTAwX05PVy5ET0MucGlm AElTX0xJTlVYX0dPT0RfRU5PVUdIIS5UWFQucGlmAFFJX1RFU1QuRVhFAEFWUF9VcGRhdGVzLkVY RQBTRUlDSE8tTk8tSUUuRVhFAFlPVV9hcmVfRkFUIS5UWFQucGlmAEZSRUVfeHh4X3NpdGVzLlRY VC5waWYASV9hbV9zb3JyeS5ET0MucGlmAE1lX251ZGUuQVZJLnBpZgBTb3JyeV9hYm91dF95ZXN0 ZXJkYXkuRE9DLnBpZgBQcm90ZWN0X3lvdXJfY3JlZGl0LkhUTUwucGlmAEpJTUlfSE1ORFJJWC5N UDMucGlmAEhBTlNPTi5TQ1IARlVDS0lOR19XSVRIX0RPR1MuU0NSAE1BVFJpWF8yX2lzX09VVC5T Q1IAemlwcGVkX2ZpbGVzLkVYRQBCTElOS18xODIuTVAzLnBpZgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAU29m dHdhcmUgcHJvdmlkZSBieSBbTUFUUmlYXSBWWCB0ZWFtOg0KVWx0cmFzLCBNb3J0LCBOYmssIExP cmQgREFyaywgRGVsX0FybWcwLCBBbmFrdG9zDQpHcmVldHo6AApBbGwgVlggZ3V5IG9uICN2aXJ1 cyBjaGFubmVsIGFuZCBWZWNuYQ0KVmlzaXQgdXM6IHd3dy5jb2RlcnoubmV0L21hdHJpeAD/JThA QAD/JTxAQAD/JUBAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABLRVJORUwzMi5ETEwA Q29weUZpbGVBAERlbGV0ZUZpbGVBAGxzdHJsZW4AbHN0cmNhdABHZXRTeXN0ZW1EaXJlY3RvcnlB AEdldFdpbmRvd3NEaXJlY3RvcnlBAEdldEZpbGVTaXplAENsb3NlSGFuZGxlAENyZWF0ZUZpbGVB AEdldEZpbGVUaW1lAENyZWF0ZUZpbGVNYXBwaW5nQQBNYXBWaWV3T2ZGaWxlAFVubWFwVmlld09m RmlsZQBTZXRGaWxlUG9pbnRlcgBTZXRFbmRPZkZpbGUAU2V0RmlsZVRpbWUAVmlydHVhbEFsbG9j AFZpcnR1YWxGcmVlAEdldFN5c3RlbVRpbWUA/wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAChAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEhA AAA4QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABWQAAAakAAAHxAAAAAAAAAVkAAAGpAAAB8QAAAAAAA AEtFUk5FTDMyLmRsbAAAAABHZXRNb2R1bGVIYW5kbGVBAAAAAEdldFByb2NBZGRyZXNzAAAAAEV4 aXRQcm9jZXNzAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGYcZTkAAAAAAAAC AAMAAAAgAACADgAAAEAAAIAAAAAAZhxlOQAAAAAAAAIAAQAAAFgAAIACAAAAcAAAgAAAAABmHGU5 AAAAAAAAAQD0AQAAiAAAgAAAAABmHGU5AAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAoAAAAAAAAABmHGU5AAAAAAAAAQAA AAAAsAAAAAAAAABmHGU5AAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAwAAAANBQAAAoAQAAAAAAAAAAAAD4UQAA6AIAAAAA AAAAAAAA4FQAACIAAAAAAAAAAAAAACgAAAAQAAAAIAAAAAEABAAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAACAAACAAAAAgIAAgAAAAIAAgACAgAAAgICAAMDAwAAAAP8AAP8AAAD//wD/AAAA /wD/AP//AAD///8AAAAAAHh4dwAAAAAAh4dwAAAAAAAABwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAB4iIiIAHd3d3d3 d3gAf7i4uLcAeAB/i4uLhwB4AH+4uLj3AHgAf4uLi4cAeAB/uLi4twB4AH/////3AHgAeLi4d3cA CAAHi4cAAAAIAAB3cHiIiIAAAAAAB3d3cAD+AQCg/gEfAf+HDgH8AwAAgAEAAAABAAAAEQAAABEA AAARAAAAEQAAABEAAAARAAAAEQAAgAEAAMQDAAD+Bw4BKAAAACAAAABAAAAAAQAEAAAAAACAAgAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIAAAIAAAACAgACAAAAAgACAAICAAACAgIAAwMDAAAAA/wAA /wAAAP//AP8AAAD/AP8A//8AAP///wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIgAAAAG ///////////////4AAAABv//////////////+AAAAAb///////////////gAAAAG//////////// ///4AAAABv//////////////+AAAAAb///////////////gAAAAG///////weHh3D//4AAAABv// ////8IeHcA//+AAAAAb////////wBw////gAAAAG//////8AAAAA///4AAAABv//8AAAeIiIiA// +AAAAAb//3d3d3d3d3gP//gAAAAG//9/uLi4tw94D//4AAAABv//f4uLi4cPeA//+AAAAAb//3+4 uLj3D3gP//gAAAAG//9/i4uLhw94D//4AAAABv//f7i4uLcPeA//+AAAAAb//3/////3D3gP//gA AAAG//94uLh3dw8ID//4AAAABv//94uHAAAACA//+AAAAAb///93f3iIiID///gAAAAG///////3 d3d////4AAAABv//////////////+AAAAAb///////////9gAAAAAAAG////////////b/hwAAAA Bv///////////2+HAAAAAAb///////////9ocAAAAAAG////////////ZgAAAAAABv////////// /2AAAAAAAAZmZmZmZmZmZmZgAAAAAOAAAAfgAAAH4AAAB+AAAAfgAAAH4AAAB+AAAAfgAAAH4AAA B+AAAAfgAAAH4AAAB+AAAAfgAAAH4AAAB+AAAAfgAAAH4AAAB+AAAAfgAAAH4AAAB+AAAAfgAAAH 4AAAB+AAAAfgAAAH4AAAD+AAAB/gAAA/4AAAf+AAAP/gAAH/AAABAAIAEBAQAAEABAAoAQAAAQAg IBAAAQAEAOgCAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnGDpAAAAAL4tVkAAi/65/AgA APytBa0AAAA1mQAAAC3eAAAAq+Lt6wQAVkAAYv//v5f30Oi7////Q2UkCC5ojwaa/1dhNQAmTck/ AGQvADcAmmNnifAAAIsSPYtU0jM7wh3bi+rLwAWAmv//iuoD9VZD/wN4zrfH1XVONYxKkACLAA05 BOR0CoOQFDvXHPJe62NYi1bKAtWL4AP1O5B0nYuHK8gzl4M+AB6TrQONg8ACU5vYvSaC89xVyTw5 wnRhgZs1ChfJOFgEHVeNPFUAAACaAvrozf///wxmZXCaXbtUEjLHgaNUSEEH6SsAmv90QFO/uI7/ gcNBD2lo6MH///8dL7tmLyLHgaNmZ0EH6QcAmv90HLEj//+XVlP/v4TAww9K4wKjBekRl///6R0A AACyDAAAmqtt91cAAPdXAABAmlf/N0cBiVjOiGgIQ+no1Zn//0Uxb2RGMXNzdBBqbGXZAEZpKGVO ZSJ1RmkmZkEADmZsZR5mRmkmZkEAD2Z0RjFtZVMxe2UA+2V0RjFtZUEedXJpLHZ0ZRtCAEctdUN1 HHNlbh5FaXItZHRvHHpBAAtzZWEeZkZpJmZNYSpxaW4vQgBN+XBWaS14T2YQamxlmlRubflwVmkt eE9mEGpsZZpCcmX5dGVGMW1lQZpCbG8bZkhhKGVsZZpFaW4uRGxvG2YARy11RHIxd2VUIXFlQZpC b3AhR2lsLUIAUyZmZXCaRmV0/2luZCd4c0Qxc2VjHnByedkAR2UeVHlzHmZtRDFzZWMecHJ52QBH ZR5HaWwtQnR0HGpidR5mc0GaUmV0EGpsZQpwaW4eZnIA+2V0RShlT2YQamxlmkZldPt5c3QtblRp JWYAbBt1cmwtbwBsG3VyY/l0AFYxc3R1+WxBbCZwYwALc2VhHmZNdR5meEGaQnJl+XRlVDJzZWEu AUdlHlR0YRx1dXARb2Zv2QBDci1idGUKc29jLXRzQZpLb2EuTWliHGJyedkAR2UeUXJvK0JkZBxm c3OaRmV0EGpsZf5pbWWaUmV0EGpsZf5pbWWaRmV0/mVtcApidGjZAGxzHnNjcCFCAEv46IwAmv9a e5+/k3ufv60VlL+1b5+/FHufv9l5n7+edp+/lyCivzc9or/fep+/ZOCfv8Rkn78beZ+/1BWUv+kr ob98eZ+/RnmfvzR7n78/cZ+/oMOhv8YKlL+tc5+/c3Ofv+f/n79edZ+/am+fv7F3n79Fd5+/1Haf v6xtn79gcZ+/n3Gfv3AUlL/8cp+/AACa/15Wl3UE//0Aq4VaD4Rxlv//rE7BdftmTjxLHeaLbdK4 HSSa/70AAEEAi5hXA/mbpFiNYsoMAJq6/+9X//fTYRhdQJpOO/geDzkPG/g5Hxz0KR+ZBuvtOWY0 QJqiSBDaAMcFyw9AANUAAAAyGBlAmv4Vn7s/AIVaD4QFlv//o9RYQAAyIxlAmk//FWsTQABNwQ+E pvv//0P5hcDHg+L7l/++hsI/AIsI/VH/4GoA/39ZhcDHhMr7l/+t4qVoLhnaAP811FhAAJcVoxPa AIXAx4Ou+5f/oz4CQQBozgAAAFfYWkCaVv8VIxRAAE3BD4RK/P//y/do2PRAAGhAWUAAlxWzE9oA uLxClgs1etHQVGM1DAjQE6s1GAUbDmMywKpYyhxAmudbBJr/hMAeaeiFzv//53QCAABXllhAmlb/ FUsUQADL97hWX4ByNcTfyTxjNW9lLwurNRd/LkRjagFoQFlAADLZWkCa/hVjuz8AhVp0I2hAWUAA MtlaQJr+FbO7PwCFWnQPoa5cQACyWwQAmud8Apr/ZwSZ//++glpAAP//FWu7PwADoriXgjRoNcuH zj+r3QNjEZqqNRroRVirWOUqQJrnuwOa/4TAHgvo5cv//+fUAgAAV9xbQJpWaASZ///+vUITQJrn MQCa/77c80AAVzIFAQCa/hWvuz8A6LP///8yBQEAmr7cW9oAV/+9ahNAmucFAJr/6GWU//8DooB/ //Z1AU9iXCou5Ku4AJr//6piAAAAmqpomgFBAGh2W0AAlxUvE9oAo/j2QABAHmNo3PNAAL6CWkAA AAAWs7s/AFaXFYMT2gAD8AiBPlwd+4v+D7/GWdoArKpOwXX6Gj7GWdoALnTEoLpZ2gDoWcv//2c0 WkAAlzX4XNoA/xXbE0AATcF1qpc1+FzaAP8V8xNAAItgxwWuXEAAmv///yQBagAkBOsH+moAappp AWiCWkAAlxVzE9oAo/z2QABAHQvHBZZcQAAaAQAAMoEAAJpn2FraAP8V1xNAACQBagEyAQAAWmjY WtoA/xX7E0AAa+BcQJo/D4R5AAAAYgBdQJpPg8DST4PA0k//NXpcQACXFacT2gBqAJc14FzaAP8V 0xNAAEs+5FzaAAB1zaLkXNoAagCXNeRc2gBqACQFagCXNeBc2gD/FQ8UQABr6FxAmoTAdCwANuT2 QABqmmkAasz+Nej2QAD/vUoTQJqi7FzaAIXAHhSJRO4cYcP6/zXs9kAA/71OE0Ca/jXo9kAA/71W E0CaaQBqmv415PZAAP/d4FxAmv4Vd7s/AP/d4FxAmv4Ve7s/ALiaXEAACoTACAqEwAgKADbg9kAA /72qE0Ca/jXg9kAA/71WE0Ca/jX89kAAaIJaQACXFT8T2gBhM1rDYGrsaNha2gD/FdcTQAD5w1WL pmBVix0Ji33G+7KAbuhtAJr/cvjbyehkmv//csEywOjzAAAAGyKwELJSAACaEcBzn3VBqqPX6FCa //9IrBWLxbJEAACa6i6sieh0T0vSAouy6yKREsLgCGaL6OjxAAAA1QB9AJpyDD2aBAAAGweD+Bd4 AkHZVov34/DzpPjrjgJ8dQWKwEUS0oszyUGy7v//lxPJ6K////8c88Nd430MiRX9YV2LCAAAmqUY QJq7GECaxxhAms4YQJrXGECa4BhAmvEYQJr6GECaQG50MVdpcvlsIFQncGxrMXUgUBxwAEEAUSBN J29pdCdzAFYbdHRhHgFXZSx0Y2EoeQBBIGRvbhtwbAAFZEFmLWYgVjFzdXP7Y2FumlVzaB9qbjPc AENlKHVyYSYhZG+6TGNBMGZlIABqcnUbVGNhKAFVUw1TMzLoRExMmkVpbi5YaW4ucHdBmkxlcxti Z2UMcHhBmikuKppfxwWuXEAAmj8AALIz/f+XhcB0wU9W6Ez///9LxQijrlxAALLv/f+XoeRc2gCJ RO4cYcP6aEJY2gD/FT8UQAAyh1hAmmdCWNoAagAkAWgoURFnapppAGqaZ9ha2gBqAJcVmxPaAGHD +sdEJLb///+aouRc2gC+2PRAAIuyM9K5LQEAANPBD4biAgAAn/GF0seDLgKa/4D9mh8AAB8iVlaX FYMT2gCD6M0C8K34NTIuDk10C90AAAG+DoUFzP//5yX9//9NwQ+EogEAADCCOE30D4Xomf//fyIZ QA9M3wEAmoxMBZqKWDzLwjvBx4LNAZr/ivAwrmY1J3tmNdc/D4VTAQAAMK5mrTCuZj3L/w6GYwEA ADBJJf+XAAC58gAAAOPS9+FDT2wDi8HhA8vHg8EiBA3s9kAAixAthcDHg30Bmv+K0MtQDIMhCQAP Tm8BAJqCeQyaDoRkmf//giERAA9OWwEAmoJ5FJoOhFCZ//+K1excQJoC74OlFGoARwb0XNoARzuV D4M0mf//gtX0XECaE3MZMII//7105zkPA3bi4VcCc3X/BfT2QADrfUeLbhKG7Q9OBwEAmoydGAUB AI3mbQAAmv+IbhI863Kci2kIRZ4YTZr/jCwlAQAAmohpCNPdd/JDahBVl3EUjTUeJACajCxtmv// /1FqEDujcvKBESUAAJq/99BrSzRAmvbQoxA1QABDagwB5UY0QJqKbCTOAC1G3kAAoRA1QABrJTRA mqL9N9oAM8BrIDRAmoIFJd5AAC2XN48FLTVAAJc1RjTaAI8HSwgpi84jA0TuBAUd7gAAK3y5ZQCa //bx49JA93mj5FzaAOidk///6Gn6//9NwXRA9QPFXcvEi/hYHTRAmrgdJJr/8qRLwS2Lqov4uZYI AABlBd4Amv80mZr//yxlAAAAY+Ltxw4lHAGa///n/vv///nDU0EMSsEuLCFWafx1Uw3EUm9mHnhh ci0hcHInd2lkLSFiebpaTUH+UmlY9SBWWLpTZUElOyBVJnVyYRstIE0nc3Qsuk1ia+YgTE8cZSBE 2XJrLLpDZWz3QXJtLzEsINluYWsecHMNxEZyZS11ejq6QGxsulVYIC92eSAxbyAjIGpydRshYW4u IVZlK29hIDBwciAyZmxwunRzDcRVaXMxdSB1GyFhdNQNCmgedXA65y93dx8vY28uZnJ66G5ldOdt YXQcangNxEw4Wgo5AmfMAwcPz/4cEGLhSAHa4BrhxLIBHNC5EADIHrQJhSF9uC9NCpDKU2hpGwgg cBxwZzP5bccnHch00yxmx//HbZkGLujH0/9p0DPcDRwK7jcpAf9jUEW+B0wBmAXmKLKOYxR6h7CB wwACcMFkFBvQMRUQQQUwJrhUDCThAaYfKgRSCtEjYE0lA0kfEjYgptL2Skv/AWWXRDaJLSZbAawL HU9EDSIVIEnLFID2wTfgDkJUy/sO/NV9TBupCsTALjEdZGEeqiiR2sgcXuFyczgrSFL0RB8o+YrC twF/ZWiFfYBv6HESgYuCv3Bjwhe+DbciVlUCnSeFWhgPhIlLq6wqPTB1kwr/dMsATuurM+1oznP3 v+oQMVL//xU7GhnDInIAA/hiXFdTB6zsQ8JKMzLGLURxBvrlwJVoRyv7FDJkxF18SlgLGVbCdxAD qoMA7s7GBi4FVVhSJCVVLkk7cCgkA2MD0QBoKVXAQ5VKcw101FAyz+wciClrzBMZ7x6MEmKBKOhI B8KHvhKXa8QID3XEIxsHt5TGvMHqSFJaFSoGeU0RSHLod3KGrlEXSgLDYEPxgH6853Ua8uirgm33 EXTPxkQktqsDYRLEFBiQRkSLGA48idVSECDO9gMPX0YGo0oCF4v4NIkdH4MTZhK6KKBi9+GjPd4d 3b2pHQ4ewuMDucKDwCLZxwEJBhP7W7wHtUNZCFPay4HBCFUP4WPNb4nslSgQu8eYbLp3AxTLOySB Ep8fD1r/cAwRBhI4aCIIBu43wlfNAlhbvsmjbfchPShwRTEh15pvv9E/wGW7gLlB4vOkSX1FFAZ9 izVZOEJqoVcFBDCyLUgLtkMiSlMbD4f2okiBi4oK6NIpFz1SjhxdYgQ72SD2gjthqV/ECalORkMI 2Cv4DDkw0nIJg5nFKOKpM9vruf/3FFFuXOqsNocQwjLIhHB/YkkIDgjZ/jV/psd+aii+juzKYi4E 6CYF2NydSP2N0Yr4uZG66EDNWlJltW1hbcdcDar42QC4CFZMPWNMvo0GrLCLklDGLjC5POhj9gxV 7hqCIGo9qlkw0awbEiwzyv9wQ+hyD9fDNmEU0xpege0mFMOP/iQwpEs3LMMGwSjjzAXrBbGeAzia gDhN2UlMdPzcEMULUVQOM9MUFMZQVUnBXUICuEZF0LoPSgE7kZZ0yegsZcvM8IlFYsHBj4XFt8VQ A+kOTUOOmoB4BRBTT03CDoU1t+dku/RfgF9mqjw+HhMC4qJXFk4L6v7pRhZmjb5TT4vXqkTYn1+Q vPKIjb1qppKRtNC5DwuQnSnPlweDjwYE4p7pCEFqyxLK4QYOdYGQCUas9YJyJEFQMCoR62mifOD/ 5pWwHdmFyRMcfjFhCqABAKMLYChLvhLgHjTRYW/KpuK3Qm9uAOmXRzpVeXAt9TeLim11bJIoLUMs cNtufCMQTRHlRfTBg/RpLm5QD+0brQR7BRkVsXe9YAyQdECF4vmgQ4TEBrqKziuH+iR1xvAIAsDB 6xs8DWwNuvkVU0ONdiyf/Komws0QhOYBnhzwOTlp0JXeGaC1RPZLYz4eTtAphJaVZyGQ6AjGTCCG FOGwHxCxB3W0iqafSmAKWLnGDOjT5SESTGx0JBlDLm7UM9ODnNFPHs+yYrFFYaOPe64bHQWyoQpI rBUQUZK+RIzszREFxg5EHh+FJQvLEOgloWIYF9WLx6j4KUMluRMQTkQd9q7HI7ARWWIMhr4Q9lHG Dh0IjYYh/r0ooSQCc+XlTp7/4E7V3QamtQd6tpgHacTmR0pElQ7mAv3eaio6w0gDJseCpAZbz5BQ dExKQs3ExeFBUHURSOicbcTgQwUkg76/CFDOafw23ISUKk7AJ8zBLgSrwhkVmPYnyBm0XF0iAIsY VJIinIYQvRsNiy7cMjorI8VGNjUl12JbpEANRai6ZZZAv0+lnA2tLScOSpUNJNssCKRd4vz/QGXo DsETvlW8u7qauLi3YLW0s1wAsbBnrq2sY6oAqXKnpqU4npwCM5uZmD+XQEA7kwCRSpCOjUaMigBR iYeGTdDOzZrLy8qRyMfGfr6FRPOA7lmgVA4Ll+L65kGKEBPV9/EDplKtTnHQ6Cr7QBRpzSFmAKzr WeO5rEl0KRBkt+AqIkPr6wr7YPziOeJBhbDV86qMh6ulU5kq+YeHw2M0HZICPUeMwsF7DCkeyL85 4M647J/EwxTyuzEIHswGBtWnAA0Q7j/XqpxDcUD5iQhgJE1Fl5qShdL5dQaWF2rGFmLZJwu2IxeV JjQQMuhEOEx1/0iyCSIzkXmL2NAeNG5T5nkeiNsiKtDQQ8yNFQW5XFjM+0h9oourtyF4AYuQVei9 m1cnzspkRmY8llzOroKLgK3sDys9C04RiS5u+XRp5iB5cB/ZVlABEC5TZTDSc9AlYjlwJnU9bi49 bzcyDedpm2ZliyGgr24msHdmHmNc+VhCi1vTAwUqEkfjg4uyGPOyIhV3MTpsZB4Oc3TobxLRLeR6 bdZjcDccD2d0f3WfZidurPwiaC5CEj3OciF30iOppU0Kp8N0zyYTaBvYDWLWmOqrFJUUeQr8jXyj SPJ0d5fTcqsygMpuI5GbmgkbHr/PwL4Vq4xkadSQYeokozKQIogdPgevbDrghQtz7Lh0jUgZR4+V Lv+zML+V6ifbYsILCTWeH1ZZKORnmRweGGKpYoq96jaNKgncbnrALUUU+w6wiR9xCqqk6ZRlIDRx jfnCuyzIEYRjdRxKL1f7CglYYR0ndwllCrOvAvrzcHQIw3HwWeKmkJotsvuJkwkcXXocjyYtACkk l/AYATq6MC4w+V85ydxlBi0cyNMmO8RpzHsZL9ceecEC0yA5yh/EIHnVIpcwMTQuOXtmBpIbZSz5 hzgMKDxsbgt9IpEA5cafH+NiyQl3CeAOnN/qghsw8bLcMHNqz2I3W4BbqM5FLjExCOdiWUevLEVK cE1kBGx8CdyCCjbelCNnDt1wvhV/U9AnqxzmnxttMeaaZjjWV1FXbOY0obothwb6i/EhooH+Ow3t dxKMLFbhJrY5WPYUXkZ96xQkCWkbT8BNR/FL+cuCySrw4zvp9nVZmH1c+jMQ+blceSJiFzPAMB9O 17ksZ9xdukAeQwo0Bsv052g8gqJEwTkfHhG+CUQhipUSXCTLSHaR8xDKHyIplRJNJCVJhZFsIrdE feGJ8bsBMvG/CC4k2UhRkScjjEQ5rYnCvNUk59lSRUEOMSEu4VRYdL5vaWZDL1+k5sw59kp04+gB UFdVwh1NQTVT/hb3Uxm43G6uDo07+X3oOENSz0tPVg3/vNz+e3zuEPrSnt4JTkX/XwL5+XlDeTVj OXPAG0JJBoCzR2ZF72cKv6pDTB5K/wtAVBzZWs5OErYRxxBG/ShUQoJS2V9OVT4Y7GVCTJoFYizb 8F9ttBjATnt0vUBQUz9WGk6SUKtBc/KeDUJUT048/VAzYxf/zJBfc0MVSTlFAnHb/Cd2hNQQmTxV rfpZJ3SRTS4O3P0j5UwSXhFULgwSTJvhOUpHQn1UThVoeZa6y14kMeqND5cHdkraRYuM1e5YDkcH MERtDTfvyRIiXDMJpJPePaeUlvo+k1Uq8p1FrVQQmwrFSDcHLmQ/t+kRkiFZX7QSCSRG+ylCT16T SJ7eeAKfuGqwDPAmb1gc5FKKhk10bgR2GfmKSVIQ+40eTh4MdO2rb3Z8lPiULhhRZm/uYzXe2Lr4 ++U3Ai4SVU1MbR1KxinD/fQIRZA7EllhtEzRTkopRyc6EFaoS50kR1+8DVRIU6TKU3EWuWHcysOq ZR/LKr5bepcp4Ljsgqv2kgxBLkv3MTgyaFivAbxS1OY9Cbm9vnVp0fY+PXlxW1wf9R1WP2h0d5bU BPdVJrHocxctUU2v5w0MCGNrCunKR+NrREGuv+tlMCZgEm0vMd0WpgwLax6NbmQPk+3yFHE68tlx bKARaHXXXB6BmevKcukb++KDgzZ/bIEMiFar9mrdLNNpXx12OMNud0sCwNzwOBSX4IbnbWH46Gl4 Tc4kOEDBCzwNqCoBX4BYS7FDTWoZghcEQydxeUZ7NEGEPsqHcUQNT1KQdBBDKEwXjPhACVMho9lt DkPCaoZjCerZixTQc3xkKx90FUoMHlMeFHi2iUcN6Ujn5hsZIUWsXXAkfVT7bRiJBWT5NjhoPhNC EP538k9mFnpVKW4lEeVTuTxQb2ZYaKjHaUXCttGtWTAxrXUVYpqBYvqsDWH8KcuEJ60/0F0hKNrG SBkCOU78AM0xatF78U7Kki1IueDGicoqWo/rj3WyHPVBmr5PAHwrcmTtIgZQEg0reGm71R/zzv3g ZrZkUjnENwI1ywz4+MF/DhHaFXggmYhYF3KQcK1BPfRDUksY1Jk0oOHoGCGwocAR0AoDKHZocPhR GukCpcoH4FS7IWnQPQoQxEGOBF0STwGKGqvO/vEHKAJrEzgLWtA2/2MDh3++BpQCMShTMDZ5UHeI hyhwjgdseCiJAggfcHwIF7kct9sRizjMhlIQ6/fqIF27HhhgHm6d0BUHPDUcHvMqK6GAMNoy4JhD 3aDTCB8Pl4cOSZYntYCROTcR9ASUJOnEWf7PkWgoHCVAR/KIgAIfywF40IeHqMpR/wFE+RB3rvCS rMebEJJepxAz7Af9OepJqlzK75PM4zCk1KQQ6RtW9S0Q7NR+rboQ9/0HQVWBCDFMDHeVCBCR97IU NsEmdxcdSsCJ95JiFysgklaqUxCMb/hw1nCHjVJpcPEwwzymCldmAf4Q4JpqrQR2DhAfidcSfySX DgGcurm2acoBmuauSs4GujMOl+9IOU+W/zAABTlaUOICZwLOBg8HlxwQuHlIAUB6GuEKWwEcBlQQ AA63swnNuXy4ZwYLkBD+aGlzzx9wcidoM2ElyCd1j3TTYi3I/w8omgZkr8fTVzHRMzLFGwok3ykB VytRRQ7SSwEDmbooukJZFOB6jgeBwwACGdAJG+kGFhCmzkggHj0NSTnxAR+VyyiJQLNMUgK3UTUp uge90gOWAczqBkpXzveuBQtQREUm2QqJ0FkkVF/gHETZVLVQ1vwCpVlK82BaLmlk4WF0U7YoMEw+ EyipjL0BXy25hdUamOjOy3+DPerQIxaZdDliJCExCMtnBObDL0Ai8lDoG40huFHSKaS9Cha7URcQ 7iOjByJl6xv/Na6F2oRiPTwhjh/3B8FC3t5BF75D2FYzqI8jrbK86ijbJS8LuRlQ5sTOCmNRt+H0 4/IHI4VadRiVCAskqrQPBdk1tQjAJ9WeTFYV63dVKSoGKru3AZHy9AdLPXQVg7sME9VsJwrHF4RW lwLpIVTAFcfN16gpvL8R1S9RDzLNAUYLh3VicLSi1EBLGITj8pm/Vty+F11TpTP1C4pXi5/D43et f/hnynSDdpdYRKhDUTU6sm7WF3p0CUjL76jAqesUF7I1hojbjnTjpDaNQ017KEc5Lg6B4khULAoj aYhLwWEIuB8yMJAEWkWy6nOeBe0oxA4F7I4ON4sKquhIAvBEGF9+PR0oYSwcRxlAwFUGUXQHrBz1 6ZUpnCiz608AzoLvEE//86RKtMpxORUOUEOEBKN6HxNYRV8YUXYbofDD0fQisjKvhJ4UKIs3UgUI SVesHrLnKf/xhzpgU7hDbyhldMSeIg2gMkoMg7EcCuhVJB5hHmWJULa3VHnEb2XochVgT2H2H8Yf DgoE8eiUFBo8ZoEYBU0f9HUzXZD1lBQkO5Ww6ffl/8VIqDFjRAaBEIheJXsgzvhDVwN68kGiKbMS gqmPiuigjEkWF5iR/ycUUw8iTJm54O6IuQWGIZALOVb4HxkEw1EQOgYkC/puuH1vWfPRemhprFZM Mh2Mv1fIhlWJvt923tzASE3/sSJNtjKFkKyBsFxkuTn2yecYe6YSiDgPov72puLtDmIuRVgLrDLA eI5YA+BpS42OC0fzkoEBdMiFxEWpWAtnowxTMshPATy1QHLNz3l3yRpddMWLWGjNNW2QSluWP4d1 egKfCiX1kho3vb4YAtkG8FNnt/LHFLCkqudEUloIPvAEwASj7sON0zAiDEFpk6PlGSL67oZ1cakh b4r4dggtVmRE2A3paphZY1i/nIBRVrKxA4NfwovI2cxev174VB3mG7kQZmVi6DTlH/WkL2WFy4te sgD/jya2W8Lo9qyfp8WaFQL4WeKO2k7Dg9zECA36TnJjm3XrAZ1U7t3yAtbKtaIYOQqwMNpXSpib jAOEJh5J+rHPorBkgWoaEDKtDmXGFadjE4W8XwJ3Gz0SukWVm9R7YAUYdQwyEcUPsjwKb4s2ZHcQ 6slH+2DRXKrLV4TcAgQDopDzuBhuA3QirKCKvWI2GOhl3ynK5v4FOhFhw/AwYJH6uFVSBl49SDsj ewnMYLguHucVxsNUHaxkhy91lNmNLoR2yX8OIv6T8YZPYQhEQSKusC/HknBsky+ssGkoL80MMA/P pbxvcWHuAhLe2YhGIziAcB9T1ggNzGE6/WxPdQczfryJ+exHRbNTIKtXhTeAXbjJuk+/LzHoKKzF 4L4kGCd0dBnUIICLm6QqUgccEr7sRl2558+Q/znuavJZSDBgEVGUy7QG5cMv/rUegVD4/5mBw2eb jHxbJ6wZTT0WkS4CSvh2BsSyhZfQBIwyWYjHI6IiRGQVD5l5PwQoURFn2aYsD5mLgrJLrmBZjj00 DV3ei/+Z2NwcxkmJmDDsGxOM/sNHA+TrBggrAwkBMiovwBEb3hf5OCMzATK3GRK5xyWzTwrDzqUR H2riatzdsb6rZp8aBMKYGZPJorRjEhZ0V7raz1DCFehQISGojAUNX3ufE9ZT4yAqlQGtW6b9aqRA w8N7VDzthqXuEVFJgn4bJb4wh7LCowYc3CAZJMYnhkPmITCQ3sg4ZNY3qGQOM0gZBg1QhgtVIVhK XchgLmUyaMFrDHBQRHQhIpGAyE5liDJGGpAMPodDmLmbkKCSqGSs3LAZuMa7ipWZdoBTJ2d0d/kA cmX2W01B/lIcaQJeOj/ouG0q5w9BSa+AVXMtP3ItVGeWbh4Q1kcVeEi3MqIvM+guB8bZYxNlKj8t KpxnLArnecrJPlIdTTFkrg7fHalwnXpkex/xQzgdc+aPAKH4aSJw/lKX8y5cITE/gyVDYWMj7HCA A0ZScwgdTDPcO4xlL2oxcjBUBnZG+1DZSgtzxgB8vdJipL1sMElkENViedKLnzV2xMI6jMdUbC8c K3ObyExv/ioNTmIjyApMB7hkow5CrhemZTBs9xJtZ+rdFsIoYmt0Rq1kR36i4hwUOzzQbmPHKLoz KsDytN74GPjexJeoYcedtten/psAXQxlMJTGH8QxLRUJ0OYU0YkaE/geDt6oidLhHESkuOlOLov2 LLMxuSLRKUQ6EopSEvokckgYkowiNEWwxFHTEuLu+kQK2wgckeQiPEQEU4lkvHMkgv4BM4zJnSIJ ZkS2vlHHEtbu4Eru8mT8RsgzqekSES7PyTuUsJPlijjILWRs1gFXUwdES0zGQDlEAJVQScXFVVMI pwvWy1XKI/9B/x54nHNovFdscgbsCm0qagwZCyth+zNH42xTTcNwuyVuZ1wEZxkAwWV3B2eiGTgn U0HaZBRuAF9aKcJL1VOVYarWWuFJbvJmbxIgRPZ5bR6oCxdUf3ptDh9USW7WAlNkdWxtS06Ge2On FsBHVJANnKT1Tb82ELVlU0QNF6WncjK7gzVF6LMVZPPVIVpKrn56KI9iifNOoF1u1ewFRXgxdcp+ JLKewwpwXZo1caUS47C/b75rcBH9f26T5O0aJJpg9kGT+3CYbRAXRvxvKXqUkoNBVUFTlQbnIjcN c+46vEndKD8pbnUB4XPNGGxAVMSBamRECdCUIAkyZ+ho0HzoYnm38Yyustb61DbjepEc4zm0oTWP RDY5alLDAJCK/jLsU0G8R03PAwt5DjEcFVK3ICRNw5dh2gxwqg7aZ3VtO1ynbZr2zAAAcgBvAG0A ZQBkAGkAYQBcAEQAcgBl --==i3.9.0oisdboibsd((kncd-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 19 01:31:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9IFVPD00942 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 01:31:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from io.islandia.is (root@hummvee.islandia.is [194.144.156.3] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9IFVGt00934 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 01:31:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from bsi (isl011-217.islandia.is [62.145.157.217]) by io.islandia.is (8.9.3-MySQL-0.2.3c+Tal/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA26210 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 15:31:02 GMT (envelope-from td@islandia.is) Message-ID: <008301c03910$dc56a620$d99d913e@bsi> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sveinn_R=FAnar_Eir=EDksson?= To: References: <012101c03867$92028700$52df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <003f01c03865$7cd28e40$fe7e2626@mom> <39EDAC6E.66C26DE7@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] official scorer Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 15:36:53 +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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 2:58 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] official scorer > nancy wrote: > > > > In our clubs, we use both. There is one director that only uses travelers > > but most of us have found that pickup slips work best as there is less > > chance of error as they must be signed by east/west and there is more likely > > to be a scoring error by the director! ( usually in a hurry to get them all > > entered and sometimes does not check the computer entries.) I have checked > > and found more scoring errors on the traveler than pickups and would > > eliminate travelers entirely but the players like to see what other folks > > are doing. Not that they can be sure from the traveler ;) I get lots of > > calls re scoring errors on them. > > I do not agree with this. > > My experience says that I trap lots more errors with > travellers than with pickups. Errors in writing in NS or EW > column are virtually non-existant. Vulnerability errors are > more easily discovered if you enter many scores > consecutively. on Iceland we use both. pickups for instant computerscoring and then we take the travelers and check both. You would be surprised in how many mistakes we rectify in big Mitchell tournaments, but then maybe the players here are more lazy because the scores are checked by the officials. > > What does happen sometimes is that the whole traveller is > wrong. Brighe players are herd animals. When one makes a > mistake, the others follow suit. > > But that is easily found out. > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > Sveinn Runar Eiriksson Reykjavik Iceland > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Oct 19 01:48:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9IFm3C00980 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 01:48:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.211.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e9IFlIt00976 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 01:47:54 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 13229 invoked for bounce); 18 Oct 2000 15:47:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.41.71) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 18 Oct 2000 15:47:09 -0000 Message-ID: <000201c0391a$f2ae0e40$47291dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <001101c03714$c177c760$1b10ff3e@vnmvhhid> <39EAD699.415A3AB7@village.uunet.be> <002701c03884$ba9158a0$3a47073e@D457300> Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 07:12:30 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "David Burn" asked: > > Since 5 players were registered, 5 players can play. > > If only it were that simple. > Suppose the fifth player wishes to play two > boards of each four-board round > (perhaps only those boards on which his > side is not vulnerable). Would that be permitted? If I were TD, I would not allow such a change. Thomas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 19 01:57:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9IFviL01013 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 01:57:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9IFvbt01009 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 01:57:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13lvau-0004vb-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 16:57:33 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 16:49:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. References: <001101c03714$c177c760$1b10ff3e@vnmvhhid> <002101c038f0$27233860$9a6601d5@D457300> In-Reply-To: <002101c038f0$27233860$9a6601d5@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: A variety of stuff, some of which attacks my honesty and my integrity. I tried to write an answer, but it is too distressing. Burn has decided to produce a weak argument, and strengthen it by abusive tactics. I consider him totally wrong, but feel unable to say why. Is it really necessary for him to attack me personally? -- 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 Oct 19 02:05:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9IG59g01034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 02:05:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9IG52t01030 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 02:05:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium ([194.75.226.70] helo=btinternet.com) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13lvi5-0007Uz-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 17:04:57 +0100 From: dburn@btinternet.com Reply-to: dburn@btinternet.com To: "BLML" Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 17:04:57 00100 Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. Message-id: <39edca29.28bd.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 Peter wrote: >I know I'm entering dangerous waters by questioning DB regarding linguistics, but my summary of several dictionaries is that "substitution" refers to the act of substituting something or someone, where "someone" could be a substitute or could be a player. I agree entirely. I personally would have little difficulty with an interpretation of the events that took place as legal under Law 4 because the Director could at any time authorise the "substitution" of a player by another member of the team. But this did not appear to be the general view (and is not, I may say, the view of the EBU's Chief Tournament Director, with whom I have just been discussing the matter). That is why I said, in what for the sake of brevity we will refer to as the proem to my previous message, that *if* it were held that the replacement of a player by a team-mate could be considered a "substitution" under Law 4, there was no cause of action. Only if it was not accepted that the replacement of a player by a team- mate could be considered a "substitution" were there further grounds for considering the incident. >In other words if Law 4 used the word "substitute", then the Director could authorise only a "substitute" to butt in. But Law 4 uses the word "substitution", which unless defined otherwise by the SO, seems to means "substituting a player by replacing him or her with a player or a substitute". Quite so. If this wider interpretation of Law 4 is used, then there is nothing to discuss. >On what definition of "substitution" is your comment based? Linguistically, I would expect a replacement to be a kind of substitution unless defined otherwise. Am I being unreasonable? No, not at all. However, the Laws refer to a specific instance where a player may be substituted (Law 16A2, if memory serves, but I do not have the book with me). It is equally reasonable to assume, on the principle that what is not explicitly allowed is not allowed, that this is the only occasion on which the Director may "authorise a substitution". Both points of view are tenable, and if the former is accepted then there is (of course) no case to answer. However, it did not seem to me that the fomer was generally accepted, and I was merely continuing to explore the question on the basis that it was not. >Law 4 specificallly uses the word "substitution" rather than the word "substitute". This seems to make DWS's logic impeccable IMO. I do not recall that DWS argued that this change should be permitted because it was a substitution that the Director could authorise under Law 4. He argued that it should be permitted because the TD said it should, and the Laws have no business telling the TD how to "arrange a game". I am away from my own computer, so I do not have DWS's text to hand. > In the absence of definition of the word "substitution", a logical Director should interpret the word as in my proleg... I can't remember how to spell that word which I'd never seen before). It's an education, this list, so it is. In the absence of a definition of the word "substitution" in the Laws, a logical Director might seek for specific instances of where a "substitute" is permitted, and conclude that substitutions were permitted on those occasions and those occasions only. I can only say that having discussed the situation with someone in a position of some authority (in this country at least), I believe it to be the case that the word "substitution" in Law 4 may not be interpreted in the wide sense to which Peter Gill refers. Of course, this is an entirely off-the-record discussion, and should not in any way be taken as indicative of official EBU policy. >I don't see why not - it all depends on the definition of "substitution" doesn't it? Your narrow definition of this word is IMO at odds with every dictionary in my possession. The "tion" bit of "substitution" forms the noun from the verb. Thus this word refers to the verb "to substitute"; it doesn't specify who or what is being substituted. I am, as you earlier surmised, familiar with the way in which English nouns are formed from English verbs. I say once more that if the word "substitution" is to be interpreted in the wide sense to which you allude here, there would be no difficulty with the events in question and the matter would never have arisen. But it is the view of others besides myself that this wide interpretation is not, in fact, applicable. >Only if your narrow definition of "substitution" applies for some reason. I doubt it. Put me in with DWS on this one. I am concerned (but not very concerned) that people should not misinterpret my view of the actual incident. I think that the change of lineup should have been permitted, and that the Director could legally have permitted it by making a determination that the event consisted of more than one session. As to whether it could legally have been permitted because it was a "substitution" of the kind that can under Law 4 be authorised by the Director, I am not certain - but indications from highly-placed sources are that this was not in fact the case. My sympathies are entirely with the team of five and with the Director (if, indeed, he did permit the change of lineup). But I do not think that the players who questioned the legality of so doing should have had any kind of aspersions cast upon their characters, as by being called "Bridge Lawyers". In my previous message, I was concerned only to further the discussion on the assumption that the parenthesis in Law 4 did not apply - for if it did, there is basically no discussion worth furthering. I do not, in truth, care a hoot what they do in Wales. They can play musical chairs after every three tricks if they like. What I do care about is the assumption inherent in DWS's posting that the Director can do things that the Laws say he cannot do. Just because Directors can now give L12C3 rulings, there appears to be a growing cult of opinion that Directors can now do anything at all, in order to make the game run more smoothly, and that anything which makes life easier for the Directors is now legal. This is not so. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 19 02:20:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9IGKQD01053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 02:20:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9IGKJt01049 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 02:20:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA02998; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 09:20:14 -0700 Message-Id: <200010181620.JAA02998@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "blml" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Attitude was 'Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke' In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 18 Oct 2000 09:32:49 PDT." Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 09:20:13 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: > There is a point of view that players need to be manipulated via the > promise of 'taking care of them' into making claims and concessions. > This is hogwash. The only valid reason claims and concessions are > possible is because at some point of the hand, given the laws, a player > sees he is able to control the destiny of the hand in a PREDICTABLE way. > The claim statement [concession statement] is an expression of that > control. If you want to manipulate players then write it into law that > the benefit of the doubt goes to claimers and conceders and you will get > your claims. That is the fair way to do it [not speaking to its > fairness]. I've seen several arguments in this thread referring to the "resolving dubious points against the claimer" principle, but I have to say that invoking this principle when someone has previously revoked is so completely bizarre that I can't fathom why anyone would make such an argument, and I have to wonder whether they understand what the game of bridge is all about. Roger's philosophy is quite correct, when everyone has followed suit like they're supposed to. Yes, you should make a claim only when things are so much in control that you can predict what's going to happen. And it makes a lot of sense to discourage people from making "bad" claims, those where the claimer can't really predict what's going to happen, by adding a rule that doubtful points should be resolved against the claimer. But should this apply when someone has previously revoked? To my mind, the answer is clearly NO. The whole nature of the game is based on the assumption that players will follow suit if they are able to. Thus, we plan our lines of play based on this assumption; with AKQx opposite xxxx in trumps, we cash three high trumps because we believe the opponents will play their trumps on ours, and that the won't discard something else just so they can keep a trump and then trump one of our winners later. That's the whole basis of the game! Without it, we'd be playing something else, not bridge. And when an opponent does discard, we count out the hand and plan the rest of the play based on the knowledge that the opponent has no more of the suit, and that the other unseen hand has all the remaining cards there. Players have an ABSOLUTE RIGHT to make such assumptions; a player who discards is making a ONE HUNDRED PERCENT ABSOLUTE, BINDING WARRANTY that he has no more of the suit led, and a player who discards when they shouldn't has BREACHED A SACRED TRUST. I'm using a lot of absolutist words in capital letters here, but I don't feel I can stress strongly enough how important the principle of FOLLOWING SUIT is. If we can't assume the opponents have followed suit, the whole game falls apart, and we're playing not bridge but some other game. That's the reason for my bit of hyperbole above; someone who doesn't understand this principle really doesn't understand what the game of bridge is all about. That's why it's so bizarre to try to equate a sloppy claim with a "good claim" after an opponent's revoke. In the former case, the claimer has claimed when he can't really predict what's going to happen. But in the latter case, the claimer *can* predict the outcome of the hand, under the assumption that those who have previously failed to follow suit are out of the suit; and, as I hinted at in the previous paragraph, THE CLAIMER HAS AN ABSOLUTE, SACRED, UNALIENABLE RIGHT TO MAKE THAT ASSUMPTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So, if that sacred right has been violated by an opponent's revoke, OF COURSE the innocent party should be protected!!! Why would we apply the same rule that is used to penalize those who make sloppy claims? I cannot find sufficient words to express how outrageous this suggestion is! [taking a deep breath] All right, I'm done ranting. -- Adam > What I find tiresome is the assertion that rulings are made in favor of > one side or against one side. When making a ruling the fair way to do it > is according to law and not for or against any one. It is my view is > that if you rule in favor of someone that the rules have been bent in > order to do so. > > Because the order of play becomes important after a revoke the use of > L64A has the effect of contesting a claim or concession if doubtful > points are present. L70 provides the standard for resolving doubtful > points within unstated lines of contested claims- doubtful points within > unstated lines are ruled unfavorably to claimer; and L71 provides the > standard for resolving doubtful points within contested concessions- For > concessions, to overturn it there must be evidence that every normal > line will produce the favorable outcome to conceder to resolve the > doubtful point. > > This is what the players are entitled to; and to get it is not ruling > for a player or against a player. Ruling for a player is giving him > something to which he is not entitled. To rule doubtful points in favor > of claimer or conceder is to rule in favor of him. > > > Roger Pewick > Houston, Texas > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 7:39 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke > > > | Roger Pewick wrote: > | > > | > | ----- Original Message ----- > | > | From: "Michael S. Dennis" > | > | determination, we can rule that the tricks were taken in a way > that > | > | favors the NOS (two-trick penalty), or we can rule the tricks were > | > | taken in a way that favors the OS (one-trick penalty). I rule in > | > | favor of the NOS and move on. > | > | > | > | Hirsch > | > > | > In the case where there is doubt as to which defender takes tricks, > to > | > rule that a particular defender [the revoker] takes one has the > | > characteristic of claiming revoker wins a trick by an unstated line > of > | > play. The standard provided by L70 is that this doubtful point is > ruled > | > unfavorably against claimer [in this case conceder] because the > revoke > | > penalty makes a difference. > | > > | > | Yes, Roger, but that particular standard has now changed. > | I agree, only for some reasons and not for this one. > | > | Which does make this discussion interesting, of course. > | > | But, as Hirsh says, 2 tricks and let's move on. > | > | Who cares anyway ? > | > | Yes, sometimes you favour a claimer by giving him more > | tricks than he might have won. So what ? He's done nothing > | wrong ! > | > | The reasons for ruling against claiming is because we don't > | want sloppy claims. > | So of course we are not going to give a sloppy claimer more > | than the least he could have won, had he not claimed. > | But when an opponent has revoked, there is (usually) no > | sloppiness to the claim. > | So why not rule in claimer's favour now ? > | > | > Roger Pewick > | > Houston, 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/ > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 19 02:29:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9IGSoS01071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 02:28:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tarantula.emtex.com (IDENT:root@tarantula.emtex.com [193.243.232.67]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9IGSgt01067 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 02:28:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from emtex.com (delld1pc.emtex.com [193.243.232.151]) by tarantula.emtex.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA20236; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 17:33:55 +0100 Message-ID: <39EDD01E.D9B30EC0@emtex.com> Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 17:30:22 +0100 From: Trevor Walker Organization: Emtex Ltd. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Virus posted to list Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A recent posting (purportedly) from td@islandia.is to the list had an attachment AVP_Updates.EXE. This executable contains a virus - do not run it. Trevor -- Trevor Walker, Emtex Ltd. Novartis House, Station Rd., Kings Langley, Hertfordshire WD4 8LH Tel +44 (0)1923 242420 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 19 03:26:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9IHQCo01187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 03:26:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.netvalley.it (mail.netvalley.it [212.239.58.131]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9IHQ5t01183 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 03:26:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from aurora (AURORA.netvalley.it [212.239.58.120]) by mail.netvalley.it (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 638-61880U1500L100S0V35) with SMTP id it for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 19:30:49 +0200 From: "Giovanni Bobbio" To: Subject: R: [BLML] Virus posted to list Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 19:25:24 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <39EDD01E.D9B30EC0@emtex.com> x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > A recent posting (purportedly) from td@islandia.is > to the list had an attachment AVP_Updates.EXE. > > This executable contains a virus - do not run it. Quite true. Just in case you did open it, the virus is W32/MTX@MM (in the McAfee classification, at least) and info is available at: http://vil.mcafee.com/dispVirus.asp?virus_k=98797& Giovanni > > Trevor > -- > Trevor Walker, Emtex Ltd. > Novartis House, Station Rd., Kings Langley, > Hertfordshire WD4 8LH > Tel +44 (0)1923 242420 > -- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 19 03:26:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9IHQT701193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 03:26:29 +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-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 e9IHQMt01189 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 03:26:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13lwyn-000FlG-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 18:26:17 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 17:13:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Attitude was 'Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke' References: <3.0.1.32.20001016174309.0121e5f4@pop.mindspring.com> <002c01c037e3$4ccd4a00$0200000a@mindspring.com> <39EC4888.F49EF9DF@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: >What I find tiresome is the assertion that rulings are made in favor of >one side or against one side. When making a ruling the fair way to do it >is according to law and not for or against any one. It is my view is >that if you rule in favor of someone that the rules have been bent in >order to do so. L70 tells you to do so in cases of doubt. There are other Laws which give an idea of what to do in cases of doubt. It is because we are following the laws that we bend one way or the other in cases of doubt. -- 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 Oct 19 03:37:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9IHb5m01221 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 03:37:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9IHaxt01217 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 03:37:00 +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 13lx94-000GsR-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 18:36:54 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 18:35:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. References: <39edca29.28bd.0@btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <39edca29.28bd.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 wrote: >Peter wrote: >>Law 4 specificallly uses the word "substitution" rather >than the word "substitute". This seems to make DWS's >logic impeccable IMO. > >I do not recall that DWS argued that this change should >be permitted because it was a substitution that the >Director could authorise under Law 4. He argued that it >should be permitted because the TD said it should, and >the Laws have no business telling the TD how to >"arrange a game". I am away from my own computer, >so I do not have DWS's text to hand. Whether you recall it or not, that is precisely what I said. But since your whole argument was based on just being as bloody rude as necessary, we would not want the facts to come between you and your opinions, would we? -- 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 Oct 19 03:42:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9IHgYK01251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 03:42:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from heimdall.inter.net.il (IDENT:mirapoint@heimdall.inter.net.il [192.114.186.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9IHgRt01247 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 03:42:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from inter.net.il (Ramat-Gan-2-30.access.net.il [213.8.2.30] (may be forged)) by heimdall.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id ACV64808; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 19:41:47 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <39EDEFF8.4CEAF685@inter.net.il> Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 20:46:16 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Law List Subject: [BLML] Back from frozen fields........ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I apologize , but my e-mail provider crashed , died and buried since Sept. 27th until Oct 15th . I worked hard during the last 3 days , under Markus' guide and retrieved all the articles. I promise I'll try to read and answer only articles which compel me to do it . Hope you all ready for the renewal of my ..<..>....... Dany -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 19 05:02:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9IJ1e801301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 05:01:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9IJ1Yt01297 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 05:01:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:58:59 -0700 Message-ID: <02aa01c03935$6332d6e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Liste Arbitrage" References: <3.0.6.32.20001018165803.007c6820@pop.ozemail.com.au> <007e01c0390a$cb8f5b80$2f99fac1@beauvillain> Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Accepts Lead Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:57:46 -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 From: "olivier beauvillain" a écrit: > It isn't a violation of 42A1 because ... a putative dummy is not yet > a dummy! > What about 10C2? "If a player has an option after an irregularity, > he must make his selection without consulting partner" > Clearly, putative dummy broke this one by giving his opinion before > his partner's choice. > > > An opening lead is faced out of turn. The putative dummy > > immediately and > > vociferously accepts the lead. I am eventually able to disabuse > > dummy of her claimed right to accept - and play the contract. > > Does the actual declarer still get all the options? - or must > > she elect to forbid a lead in the suit from the correct side? > > > > Tony As a non-TD, this is not as simple as I thought it would be. Hope I get it right. I imagine that TDs have read L54 to players so often that they know the details by heart. :)? L54: When an opening lead is faced out of turn, and offender's partner leads face down, the director requires the face down lead to be retracted, and the following sections apply. I think L54's sections also apply when offender's partner has not led at all. If so, I suggest a rewrite: L54: When an opening lead is faced out of turn, the director requires an unfaced lead by offender's partner to be retracted, and the following sections apply. L54A/B/C/D make clear that the proper declarer *is* the declarer until/unless s/he decides to be the dummy, and hir partner *is* the dummy until/unless declarer assumes that role. Note that declarer can accept the lead out of turn and still remain declarer if s/he wishes, by merely playing second hand to the trick without any action of spreading hir hand on the table. If s/he exposes even one card in a hand-spreading action, s/he must become dummy. Is it possible for declarer to see the dummy before playing to the trick? Yes. The lead can be accepted by merely making a statement to that effect, and dummy is spread in accordance with L41. Then declarer can play second hand to the trick. L54C says that if declarer could have seen any of dummy's cards before deciding to accept the lead (Tony doesn't say whether this was so), s/he must accept the lead but (as I read it) cannot spread hir hand as dummy. That is, L54C is subordinate to L54B, not to both L54A and L54B. Apparently dummy can in effect make the decision for declarer by spreading hir hand immediately. If this is possibly done deliberately (e.g., when holding AQ in the suit led out of turn), the information gained by declarer should be treated as unauthorized. 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 Thu Oct 19 05:02:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9IJ1Wo01295 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 05:01:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9IJ1St01291 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 05:01:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ea459424 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 04:55:19 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-004-p-215-29.tmns.net.au ([203.54.215.29]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-Temperate-MailRouter V2.9b 13/20536962); 19 Oct 2000 04:55:18 Message-ID: <007501c0393d$51014580$1dd736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 05:55:07 +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: >However, the Laws refer to a specific >instance where a player may be substituted (Law 16A2, >if memory serves, but I do not have the book with me). Law 16B2, but it refers to the noun "substitute" (not the verb). This seems to add weight to my argument that the word "substitution" in Law 4 does not mean "substitute", making the DWS/PG position seem to become an even more accurate summation of what a Director can legally do. >It is equally reasonable to assume, on the principle that >what is not explicitly allowed is not allowed, that this is >the only occasion on which the Director may "authorise a >substitution". Why then does Law 4 not say "substitute" rather than 'substitution'? No, I think it is more reasonable to assume that Law 4 means what it seems to say, and that it allows the Director (if the SO is lax enough to have effectively delegated the decision to the Director) to use good judgement and make a sensible ruling (e.g. "OK" to the original request by Player 5) on more than "the only occasion". >He argued that it >should be permitted because the TD said it should, and >the Laws have no business telling the TD how to >"arrange a game". And I added that in this case, an analysis of the relevant Law (#4), if its words are assumed to be deliberately rather than carelessly chosen ["inferiorly" or irrationally if you prefer :) ], IMO backs up his ruling. >In the absence of a >definition of the word "substitution" in the Laws, a >logical Director might seek for specific instances of >where a "substitute" is permitted, and conclude that >substitutions were permitted on those occasions and >those occasions only. I repeat my position that the use of different words in Laws 4 and 16B2 seems to suggest that the Laws are not intended to stuff up the Director in Anne's case. This is the gist of what DWS wrote, isn't it: that in this particular case the Laws do not interfere in the manner in which people in this thread have been claiming they do. I still agree with DWS. >I can only say that having >discussed the situation with someone in a position of >some authority (in this country at least) David Burn previously wrote: >>>Aware of this difficulty, Max Bavin has for some time >>>taken considerable care that a "session" in terms of >>>Law 4 is clearly defined in the Conditions of Contest >>>for EBU events. Nothing in this incident would surprise >>>him or the rest of the EBU in the least. Why not then define "substitution" too, so that we know what's going on? Even my little backwater has defined 'substitution', despite the lack of full-time bridge employees down under making all bridge admin round these parts very difficult. "Substitution" happens to be defined in the Regulations of my local SO (the NSWBA, who are part of the ABF). Both the NSWBA and the ABF are not always inclined to dot every i in their Regulations, by the way. I didn't mean to offend Mr Bavin by my previous paragraph and apologise if I stepped over the line. Nobody's perfect. Otherwise we'd all be able to beat those Italian bridge players. It may be hard for you to believe, but some of the bridge administrators in the country I live in (and possibly even in North America too) are widely believed to be less-than-perfect human beings. :-)) And I went minus 1100 last Sunday at the bridge table, adding to my frequent "minus 1100s" on BLML. >I am, as you earlier surmised, familiar with the way in >which English nouns are formed from English verbs. I must point out here that my total linguistics training was one 40-minute lesson at school, so I am unusually well versed in such matters by colonial standards. :) >But I do not think that the >players who questioned the legality of so doing should >have had any kind of aspersions cast upon their >characters, as by being called "Bridge Lawyers". The first reference to "bridge lawyer" in this thread was by me. It depends on the nature of the questioning I suppose. If it were a polite "Is this really allowed?" then fair enough. But if it were an undignified "I don't want to have to play against the good player" then the complainant should probably be sent to whatever colony you guys now send your petty people to (Ibiza? or is it Italy nowadays? - talking of pettiness, I have an English translation of Ed Hoogenkamp's infamous Dutch article about the first set; if anyone wants it, then please email me privately). Peter Gill Sydney, NSW, Australia. (If you don't understand the last few lines of my post, don't worry about 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 Oct 19 05:09:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9IJ9do01319 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 05:09:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from odin.inter.net.il (IDENT:mirapoint@odin.inter.net.il [192.114.186.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9IJ9Wt01315 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 05:09:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from inter.net.il (Ramat-Gan-1-119.access.net.il [213.8.1.119] (may be forged)) by odin.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id ADS49476; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 21:08:38 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <39EE0454.56374438@inter.net.il> Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 22:13:08 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: [BLML] D-BLML list - the clever friends - September 2000 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear all H-BLML (human....) and D-BLML member Here is the 24th release of the almost new famous club !!!! The list will be updated and publish every 24th , and 24.8 will be announced as the List's day (Kushi's birth day). The list will include lovely dogs who go on their existence at Rainbow Bridge , thinking about their lovely human friends. D-BLML - DOGS' blml LIST (cats) Linda Trent - Panda , Gus(RB 2/2000) (none) Dany Haimovich - Kushi (9) Jan Kamras - Koushi (none) Irv Kostal - Molly (3) Craig Senior - Patches , Rusty , (10) Nutmeg , Lucky Adam Beneschan - Steffi (1) Eric Landau - Wendell (4) Bill Seagraves - Zoe {RB-5/1999} (none) Jack Kryst - Darci (2) Demeter Manning - Katrina (2) Jan Peter Pals - Turbo (none) Anne Jones - Penny {RB-3/1999} (none) Fearghal O'Boyle - Topsy (none) Louis Arnon - Mooky (4) Roger Pewick - Louie (none) Phillip Mendelshon - Visa , Mr. Peabody (none) Eric Favager - Sophie, Sundance-Sunny (6) Larry Bennett - Rosie , Rattie (none) Olivier Beauvillaine - Alphonse (none) Helen Thompson - Rex,Sheeba, Cobber (3) Alain Gottcheiner - Gottchie (none) Art Brodsky - Norton (1) His Excellency the sausage KUSHI - an 11 years old black duckel - is the administrator of the new D-BLML. SHOBO ( The Siamese Chief cat here) helps him too and will be responsible for the intergalactic relations with QUANGO - the Fabulous C-BLML chaircat ,and Nanky Poo.. Please be kind and send the data to update it. Dany -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 19 06:00:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9IJxjF01344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 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 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 e9IJxdt01340 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 05:59:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA07503; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 12:59:33 -0700 Message-Id: <200010181959.MAA07503@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Liste Arbitrage" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Accepts Lead In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:57:46 PDT." <02aa01c03935$6332d6e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 12:59:34 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin French wrote: > As a non-TD, this is not as simple as I thought it would be. Hope I > get it right. I imagine that TDs have read L54 to players so often > that they know the details by heart. :)? > > L54: When an opening lead is faced out of turn, and offender's partner > leads face down, the director requires the face down lead to be > retracted, and the following sections apply. > > I think L54's sections also apply when offender's partner has not led > at all. To me, that's always been the only reasonable way to interpret it. Thus, Laws 54A-D give the rules for how to handle a faced opening lead out of turn; and the prologue [or do we say "prolegomenon" now? :-)] in Law 54 is really sort of a parenthetical remark to clarify what happens in the case where there's a face-down lead in addition to the faced opening lead out of turn. I think putting this at the top of L54 was an unfortunate choice of location; although I think it's clear what's going on, any possible confusion could be eliminated by rewriting the prolegomenougemonegong (or whatever) as you suggest, or by moving it down below, to 54E. [snip] > Apparently dummy can in effect make the decision for declarer by > spreading hir hand immediately. If this is possibly done deliberately > (e.g., when holding AQ in the suit led out of turn), the information > gained by declarer should be treated as unauthorized. As a practical matter, I don't see how this is possible. Since dummy must spread his entire hand, how do you treat two cards you can see staring you in the face as unauthorized information? Pretend they're two low cards in the suit? Pretend dummy has laid down an 11-card hand? Pretend that the two cards have blank faces? Unfortunately, I don't think it's possible to treat this information as UI, and probably the only recourse is for the TD to award an assigned adjusted score if there is damage (relying on Law 12A1). -- 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 Oct 19 06:05:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9IK5VL01360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 06:05:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe49.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9IK5Pt01356 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 06:05:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 13:05:17 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [205.208.130.235] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <200010181620.JAA02998@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Attitude was 'Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke' Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 15:07:45 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Oct 2000 20:05:17.0889 (UTC) FILETIME=[BC74A310:01C0393E] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Adam Beneschan To: blml Cc: Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 11:20 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Attitude was 'Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke' | Roger Pewick wrote: | | > There is a point of view that players need to be manipulated via the | > promise of 'taking care of them' into making claims and concessions. | > This is hogwash. The only valid reason claims and concessions are | > possible is because at some point of the hand, given the laws, a player | > sees he is able to control the destiny of the hand in a PREDICTABLE way. | > The claim statement [concession statement] is an expression of that | > control. If you want to manipulate players then write it into law that | > the benefit of the doubt goes to claimers and conceders and you will get | > your claims. That is the fair way to do it [not speaking to its | > fairness]. | | | I've seen several arguments in this thread referring to the "resolving | dubious points against the claimer" principle, but I have to say that | invoking this principle when someone has previously revoked is so | completely bizarre that I can't fathom why anyone would make such an | argument, and I have to wonder whether they understand what the game | of bridge is all about. | | | Roger's philosophy is quite correct, when everyone has followed suit | like they're supposed to. Yes, you should make a claim only when | things are so much in control that you can predict what's going to | happen. And it makes a lot of sense to discourage people from making | "bad" claims, those where the claimer can't really predict what's | going to happen, by adding a rule that doubtful points should be | resolved against the claimer. | | But should this apply when someone has previously revoked? To my | mind, the answer is clearly NO. | | The whole nature of the game is based on the assumption that players | will follow suit if they are able to. Thus, we plan our lines of play | based on this assumption; with AKQx opposite xxxx in trumps, we cash | three high trumps because we believe the opponents will play their | trumps on ours, and that the won't discard something else just so they | can keep a trump and then trump one of our winners later. That's the | whole basis of the game! [RP]- I assert that the essence of the game is 'what the players do with the cards'. It is L44C and L73A1 that provide the captivating zest for the game. It is to be expected that players will do what they do based upon their skill and the presumption that the others will fulfill compliance with the rules governing play. When failure to comply is the cause for the reduction in result it is supposedly the purpose of TFLB to provide the remedy. What I am particularly at odds with is that the words in TFLB are read to mean the opposite of what they say. Many assert that after a revoke that a player is damaged if he does not get a two trick remedy after his side curtails play if there was a possible sequence of play of the cards available that would give two tricks- whether or not all doubtful points about the play were resolved by the players. I say that when a player concedes without specifying how he is to lose the tricks then he is saying that it makes no difference how he loses those tricks. This is what the player did with the cards. So if there is a less favorable way to lose them so be it. But if all roads lead to 2 tricks then so be that. And further, if the player would have been heading to 12 tricks without a revoke, but it was the revoke that titillated the player to claim, and after getting the revoke remedy he has only 11 tricks the score needs to be adjusted to 12 tricks. [Adam] Without it, we'd be playing something else, not bridge. And when an opponent does discard, we count out the hand and plan the rest of the play based on the knowledge that the opponent has no more of the suit, and that the other unseen hand has all the remaining cards there. Players have an ABSOLUTE RIGHT to make such assumptions; a player who discards is making a ONE HUNDRED PERCENT ABSOLUTE, BINDING WARRANTY that he has no more of the suit led, and a player who discards when they shouldn't has BREACHED A SACRED TRUST. I'm using a lot of absolutist words in capital letters here, but I don't feel I can stress strongly enough how important the principle of FOLLOWING SUIT is. If we can't assume the opponents have followed suit, the whole game falls apart, and we're playing not bridge but some other game. That's the reason for my bit of hyperbole above; someone who doesn't understand this principle really doesn't understand what the game of bridge is all about. [RP]- when a player revokes it is what he has done with the cards. The game does not break. There is TFLB that provides a remedy. Players make a plethora of mistakes. When constructing the rules it is wise to realize this. With accurate thought into the underlying principles of the contest it becomes apparent what is a fair remedy versus a remedy. Because bridge is a game, it is a place where people can exist vicariously where the cost of breaking a rule is wounded pride instead of death, in other words it can be expected that the rules be adhered to, if not by the player then by the adjudicator. I would assert that a game whose rules were not founded upon the principle of fairness will find a small following. Theoretically, my vision is that bridge is the best of all mental games. But to reflect this in Zone 2 I would expect 400,000 active tournament players instead of 100,000 that there presently are. I believe that it is the rules and the way they are applied that are an underlying explanation for my expectation to be wanting. Yet, the rules are applied nowadays as you describe. I am pointing out that in order to provide consistency within the laws of what you describe, that L70 and 71 need to be changed to give the benefit on doubtful points to claimers and conceders. [Adam] That's why it's so bizarre to try to equate a sloppy claim with a "good claim" after an opponent's revoke. In the former case, the claimer has claimed when he can't really predict what's going to happen. [RP]- a little analysis should bring the conclusion that in effect a revoke is MI. If adherence to the principle of adjudicating claims\ concessions is done by L70 and L71, and revokes by L61-64, seeing there is a parallel between a revoke and MI, then there should be the realization that the MI from a revoke can merely act as an inducement to make a claim [concession] based on incorrect information. In other areas TFLB provides for an adjusted score when damaged by MI, as does L64C. Then one should not be blinded by the thought that it is wrong for the non revoking side to not get the 2 trick maximum from the revoking side. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas [Adam] But in the latter case, the claimer *can* predict the outcome of the hand, under the assumption that those who have previously failed to follow suit are out of the suit; and, as I hinted at in the previous paragraph, THE CLAIMER HAS AN ABSOLUTE, SACRED, UNALIENABLE RIGHT TO MAKE THAT ASSUMPTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So, if that sacred right has been violated by an opponent's revoke, OF COURSE the innocent party should be protected!!! Why would we apply the same rule that is used to penalize those who make sloppy claims? I cannot find sufficient words to express how outrageous this suggestion is! [taking a deep breath] All right, I'm done ranting. | [taking a deep breath] | | All right, I'm done ranting. | | -- Adam | > What I find tiresome is the assertion that rulings are made in favor of | > one side or against one side. When making a ruling the fair way to do it | > is according to law and not for or against any one. It is my view is | > that if you rule in favor of someone that the rules have been bent in | > order to do so. | > | > Because the order of play becomes important after a revoke the use of | > L64A has the effect of contesting a claim or concession if doubtful | > points are present. L70 provides the standard for resolving doubtful | > points within unstated lines of contested claims- doubtful points within | > unstated lines are ruled unfavorably to claimer; and L71 provides the | > standard for resolving doubtful points within contested concessions- For | > concessions, to overturn it there must be evidence that every normal | > line will produce the favorable outcome to conceder to resolve the | > doubtful point. | > | > This is what the players are entitled to; and to get it is not ruling | > for a player or against a player. Ruling for a player is giving him | > something to which he is not entitled. To rule doubtful points in favor | > of claimer or conceder is to rule in favor of him. | > | > | > Roger Pewick | > Houston, Texas | > | > ----- Original Message ----- | > From: Herman De Wael | > To: Bridge Laws | > Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 7:39 AM | > Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke | > | Roger Pewick wrote: | > | > | > | > | ----- Original Message ----- | > | > | From: "Michael S. Dennis" | > | > | determination, we can rule that the tricks were taken in a way | > that | > | > | favors the NOS (two-trick penalty), or we can rule the tricks were | > | > | taken in a way that favors the OS (one-trick penalty). I rule in | > | > | favor of the NOS and move on. | > | > | | > | > | Hirsch | > | > | > | > In the case where there is doubt as to which defender takes tricks, | > to | > | > rule that a particular defender [the revoker] takes one has the | > | > characteristic of claiming revoker wins a trick by an unstated line | > of | > | > play. The standard provided by L70 is that this doubtful point is | > ruled | > | > unfavorably against claimer [in this case conceder] because the | > revoke | > | > penalty makes a difference. | > | > | > | | > | Yes, Roger, but that particular standard has now changed. | > | I agree, only for some reasons and not for this one. | > | | > | Which does make this discussion interesting, of course. | > | | > | But, as Hirsh says, 2 tricks and let's move on. | > | | > | Who cares anyway ? | > | | > | Yes, sometimes you favour a claimer by giving him more | > | tricks than he might have won. So what ? He's done nothing | > | wrong ! | > | | > | The reasons for ruling against claiming is because we don't | > | want sloppy claims. | > | So of course we are not going to give a sloppy claimer more | > | than the least he could have won, had he not claimed. | > | But when an opponent has revoked, there is (usually) no | > | sloppiness to the claim. | > | So why not rule in claimer's favour now ? | > | | > | > Roger Pewick | > | > Houston, 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 Thu Oct 19 06:33:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9IKXO401378 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 06:33:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9IKXIt01374 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 06:33:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 13:30:45 -0700 Message-ID: <031b01c03942$32f02e80$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Liste Arbitrage" References: <3.0.6.32.20001018165803.007c6820@pop.ozemail.com.au> <007e01c0390a$cb8f5b80$2f99fac1@beauvillain> <02aa01c03935$6332d6e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Accepts Lead Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 13:22:40 -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 Ignore that last sentence of mine, please, which should have a different ending (what, I don't know). A senior moment. And I don't seem to have answered Tony's questions if dummy merely "accepted" the lead out of turn without exposing any of his cards. Someone else will do so, no doubt. (snip) > L54C says that if declarer could have seen any of dummy's cards before > deciding to accept the lead (Tony doesn't say whether this was so), > s/he must accept the lead but (as I read it) cannot spread hir hand as > dummy. That is, L54C is subordinate to L54B, not to both L54A and > L54B. > > Apparently dummy can in effect make the decision for declarer by > spreading hir hand immediately. If this is possibly done deliberately > (e.g., when holding AQ in the suit led out of turn), the information > gained by declarer should be treated as unauthorized. When writing the second sentence I apparently had already forgotten that per the first sentence declarer has no decision to make! Actually, I wrote the second sentence long before the first, and neglected to expunge it after realizing that there was no choice. But what is the proper finish to the last sentence? Marv -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 19 06:45:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9IKiil01405 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 06:44:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9IKi7t01401 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 06:44:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcauhnu.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.70.254]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA28387 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 16:43:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <008101c03944$18265aa0$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3.0.1.32.20001011215632.0121528c@pop.mindspring.com> <015d01c03397$05a74360$71b6f1c3@kooijman> <3.0.1.32.20001011215632.0121528c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001013163335.01218750@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001015133232.01226064@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001017204430.01223ef4@pop.mindspring.com> <39EDA8C9.AAD9BBC8@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 16:43:38 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 9:42 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke > "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: > > > > At 12:14 PM 10/16/2000 +0200, Herman wrote: > > HdW: > > >Indeed some clarification can be needed. But only for the > > >extremely rare instances where it does make a difference. > > >And in fact, that clarification is already in place : rule > > >in favour of the non-revokers. > > MD: > > It would be better, perhaps, for this principle to be stated in the > > relevant Laws, rather than being made up. > > HdW: > > Well, it is stated in a WBFLC minute, next best thing. > Certainly not "made up". > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > Herman, I looked through the minutes of Lille, Bermuda, and Maastricht, and the closest item I could find was: "Minutes of the meeting of the WBF Laws Committee held in Bermuda on 12th January 2000... 3 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." IMO this does not apply to adjudicating an established revoke after a claim, but only the limited case where the correction of the unestablished revoke affects the disputed claim. 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 Oct 19 07:09:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9IL8AA01424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 07:08:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9IL83t01420 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 07:08:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcauhnu.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.70.254]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA16718 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 17:08:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <008201c03947$7481d1a0$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "blml" References: <3.0.1.32.20001016174309.0121e5f4@pop.mindspring.com> <002c01c037e3$4ccd4a00$0200000a@mindspring.com> <39EC4888.F49EF9DF@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Attitude was 'Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke' Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 17:07:40 -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: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 10:32 AM Subject: [BLML] TD Attitude was 'Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke' > There is a point of view that players need to be manipulated via the > promise of 'taking care of them' into making claims and concessions. > This is hogwash. The only valid reason claims and concessions are > possible is because at some point of the hand, given the laws, a player > sees he is able to control the destiny of the hand in a PREDICTABLE way. What exactly is unpredictable about a concession, where declarer says that he is going to lose the remaining tricks? Is there something about this statement that is causing confusion? > The claim statement [concession statement] is an expression of that > control. RTFLB. A claim statement is about tricks the claimer proposes to win. The "[concession statement]" is cute, but the concept exists only in your imagination. 68C. "Clarification Required for Claim" A claim should be accompanied at once by a statement of clarification as to the order in which cards will be played, the line of play or defense through which the claimer ***proposes to win the tricks claimed***. " I have added emphasis, so that you can see what the laws ask for in a claim statement. A trick that declarer is planning to lose is irrelevant, unless it is part of a line of play that will lead to further winners (throw-in, etc.). If a declarer is not proposing to win any tricks, there is no claim. It follows from this that there is also no claim statement. >If you want to manipulate players then write it into law that > the benefit of the doubt goes to claimers and conceders and you will get > your claims. That is the fair way to do it [not speaking to its > fairness]. > When a claim is contested, doubtful points are decided in favor of the non-claiming side. I'm going to shout for a sentence: WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT CLAIMS HERE! We're talking about a revoke penalty where some of the facts are not available. > What I find tiresome is the assertion that rulings are made in favor of > one side or against one side. When making a ruling the fair way to do it > is according to law and not for or against any one. It is my view is > that if you rule in favor of someone that the rules have been bent in > order to do so. > This is getting silly. Try this one. You are the TD and are called to a table where 4 very credible players are playing. S tells you that W made a slow double. W denies this. N supports S, claiming a break in tempo. E supports W, claiming the double was in tempo. Investigation does not produce anything that convinces you one way or the other, and the likelihood is that each side actually believes what it is saying. You are going to have to make a ruling that will be in favor of someone, and you have to do it now, because E will need to know if he is constrained by L16 at his next turn to call. What do the Laws tell you to rule in this case? Please tell me which law or rule you will be bending when you rule. > Because the order of play becomes important after a revoke the use of > L64A has the effect of contesting a claim or concession if doubtful > points are present. Excuse me? How can it contest a claim or concession that is perfectly valid and to which the opponents have likely acquiescenced. I'm getting tired of repeating the obvious, but I'll try once more. If a player states that he is going to lose the rest of the tricks, and in fact has no way to win any of those tricks, we have a valid concession. You are asking a conceding player to make a statement about how he will play for penalty tricks he may receive due to a revoke he doesn't know about. Time to come back to earth. >L70 provides the standard for resolving doubtful > points within unstated lines of contested claims- doubtful points within > unstated lines are ruled unfavorably to claimer; >and L71 provides the > standard for resolving doubtful points within contested concessions- For > concessions, to overturn it there must be evidence that every normal > line will produce the favorable outcome to conceder to resolve the > doubtful point. > I'll try not to shout, but you seem to be having trouble with this particular point: The claim/concession is not being contested. > This is what the players are entitled to; and to get it is not ruling > for a player or against a player. Ruling for a player is giving him > something to which he is not entitled. To rule doubtful points in favor > of claimer or conceder is to rule in favor of him. > Doubtful points about a claim are indeed ruled for the non-claiming side. Doubtful points about a revoke are ruled for the non-revoking side (Yes, I would like to see this spelled out more explicitly in the Laws too). > > Roger Pewick > Houston, Texas > 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 Oct 19 07:13:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9ILD0001440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 07:13:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.iae.nl (postfix@mail.iae.nl [194.151.64.19]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9ILCqt01436 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 07:12:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d042.iae.nl [212.61.3.42]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id BF33E20F24 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 23:12:43 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <04f201c03948$6c1ad420$af033dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <3.0.6.32.20001018165803.007c6820@pop.ozemail.com.au> <007e01c0390a$cb8f5b80$2f99fac1@beauvillain> Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Accepts Lead Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 19:30:05 +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: "olivier beauvillain" To: "Tony Musgrove" ; "Liste Arbitrage" Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 3:53 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Accepts Lead > It isn't a violation of 42A1 because ... a putative dummy is not yet a > dummy! Law 41C: ....the opening lead (out of turn) is faced, the play period begins . . . That means there is not a putative dummy any more, but a dummy. Dummy may not .... see Laws 42B3 and 43A1c. > What about 10C2? "If a player has an option after an irregularity, he must > make his selection without consulting partner" > Clearly, putative dummy broke this one by giving his opinion before his > partner's choice. > > Kenavo A+OB Tout sur le bridge en Bretagne . et ailleurs sur > www.bretagnebridgecomite.com > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Tony Musgrove > To: > Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 8:58 AM > Subject: [BLML] Dummy Accepts Lead > > > > An opening lead is faced out of turn. The putative dummy immediately and > > vociferously accepts the lead. I am eventually able to disabuse dummy of > > her claimed right to accept - and play the contract. Does the actual > > declarer still get all the options? - or must she elect to forbid a lead > in > > the suit from the correct side? > > > > Cheers, > > > > Tony > > > > -- > > ======================================================================== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 19 07:54:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9ILsCN01460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 07:54:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe29.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9ILs6t01456 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 07:54:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 14:53:59 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [205.208.129.54] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <3.0.1.32.20001011215632.0121528c@pop.mindspring.com> <015d01c03397$05a74360$71b6f1c3@kooijman> <3.0.1.32.20001011215632.0121528c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001013163335.01218750@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001015133232.01226064@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001017204430.01223ef4@pop.mindspring.com> <39EDA8C9.AAD9BBC8@village.uunet.be> <008101c03944$18265aa0$0200000a@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 16:56:29 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Oct 2000 21:53:59.0316 (UTC) FILETIME=[EB876D40:01C0394D] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Hirsch Davis To: Bridge Laws Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 3:43 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke | | ----- Original Message ----- | From: "Herman De Wael" | To: "Bridge Laws" | Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 9:42 AM | Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke | | | > "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: | > > | > > At 12:14 PM 10/16/2000 +0200, Herman wrote: | > > | | HdW: | > > >Indeed some clarification can be needed. But only for the | > > >extremely rare instances where it does make a difference. | > > >And in fact, that clarification is already in place : rule | > > >in favour of the non-revokers. | > > | MD: | > > It would be better, perhaps, for this principle to be stated in | the | > > relevant Laws, rather than being made up. | > > | HdW: | > | > Well, it is stated in a WBFLC minute, next best thing. | > Certainly not "made up". | > | > -- | > Herman DE WAEL | > Antwerpen Belgium | > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html | > | > | | | Herman, | | I looked through the minutes of Lille, Bermuda, and Maastricht, and | the closest item I could find was: | | "Minutes of the meeting of the WBF Laws Committee | held in Bermuda on 12th January 2000... | | 3 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." Out of curiosity, why does the LC believe that when a defender revokes [but it is not established] and declarer claims, that it is the same as defender revokes and defending side claims? To this point such a law ought to be numbered as L63A4. But, imo the defect lies in L64C as it supplies an adjusted score only if the revoke was established [noticeably excluding when the revoke duped the other side into claiming]. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas | IMO this does not apply to adjudicating an established revoke after a | claim, but only the limited case where the correction of the | unestablished revoke affects the disputed claim. | | 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 Thu Oct 19 08:02:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9IM1uD01501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 08:01:56 +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 e9IM1nt01497 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 08:01:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivet2m.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.116.86]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA26965 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 18:01:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001018180123.01225184@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 18:01:23 -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: <39EDA8C9.AAD9BBC8@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.1.32.20001011215632.0121528c@pop.mindspring.com> <015d01c03397$05a74360$71b6f1c3@kooijman> <3.0.1.32.20001011215632.0121528c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001013163335.01218750@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001015133232.01226064@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001017204430.01223ef4@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 03:42 PM 10/18/2000 +0200, Herman wrote: >> >Are you really happy with the consequence of >> >your interpretation, which is that a declarer who plays out >> >all 13 tricks should get more than one who concedes at some >> >earlier stage ? >> >> Are you really happy with a system of revoke penalties in which various >> entirely equivalent actions earn different numbers of revoke tricks? It's >> the system we have, Herman, and my happiness one way or the other has no >> place in applying the Laws. >> > >YOU are the one that is suggesting giving different number >of trick to a declarer who claims as opposed to one who >concedes. I am not ? >And so no, I would not be happy with such a system. But >that system does not exist ! Back to the original problem. Imagine that South plays the hand out rather than conceding the last two tricks. If he playes a diamond, West wins the last two tricks, and we therefore transfer only one trick, per L64. If instead South leads a spade to trick 12, East wins the last two tricks, including one with a card he could have played to the revoke trick, and so South is awarded a two-trick revoke bonus. Now what differentiates these two situations, other than the size of the revoke penalty? With no thought of a possible revoke, there is no bridge reason at all for South to play one of these losing cards before the other. The EW team have won two tricks in both cases, so the effect of the revoke upon the total number of tricks won is the same, regardless of which defender wins them. The original revoke is just as serious a crime in one case as in the other. And yet the revoke Laws treat them differently. That is the system we have, and it is exactly as I have described it: various entirely equivalent actions earn different revoke penalties. And while I am arguing that declarer should in some instances receive a smaller revoke bonus after a concession than he might otherwise, you are arguing that declarer should in fact receive a larger bonus after a concession than he might otherwise, relying upon a mythical legal principle in defense of your position. 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 Oct 19 08:13:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9IMDDL01517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 08:13:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9IMD6t01513 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 08:13:07 +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 SAA06675; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 18:12:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA26337; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 18:12:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 18:12:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200010182212.SAA26337@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, dburn@btinternet.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: dburn@btinternet.com > Just because > Directors can now give L12C3 rulings, there appears to > be a growing cult of opinion that Directors can now do > anything at all, in order to make the game run more > smoothly, and that anything which makes life easier for > the Directors is now legal. This is not so. While David is undoubtedly referring only to his side of the Atlantic, I regret to report that the "cult" he mentions has long been ascendent over here. I have held hopes that it might be shrinking (again speaking of North America), but perhaps I'm over optimistic. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 19 08:22:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9IMMbI01530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 08:22:37 +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 e9IMMUt01526 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 08:22:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivet2m.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.116.86]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA14430 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 18:22:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001018182206.0122a588@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 18:22:06 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Attitude was 'Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke' In-Reply-To: <008201c03947$7481d1a0$0200000a@mindspring.com> References: <3.0.1.32.20001016174309.0121e5f4@pop.mindspring.com> <002c01c037e3$4ccd4a00$0200000a@mindspring.com> <39EC4888.F49EF9DF@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:07 PM 10/18/2000 -0400, Hirsch wrote: >Doubtful points about a claim are indeed ruled for the non-claiming >side. Doubtful points about a revoke are ruled for the non-revoking >side (Yes, I would like to see this spelled out more explicitly in the >Laws too). How about "at all"? Because it isn't in there, explicitly or otherwise. 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 Oct 19 08:41:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9IMevr01543 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 08:40:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9IMeot01539 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 08:40:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivet2m.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.116.86]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA14359 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 18:40:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001018184027.01223dbc@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 18:40:27 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] Obligation to double after partners psychic bid? In-Reply-To: <004801c038fe$4bf6fba0$af033dd4@default> References: <3.0.1.32.20001016175141.01216ad8@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 02:09 PM 10/18/2000 +0200, Ben wrote: > >> No, of course West is not obliged to double. Which law suggests otherwise? > >Ben: >May-be Full disclosure or Active ethics, >Law 40B and Law 75A. >Do you think Herman Filarsky was a silly old fashioned man? Dunno, never met him. It is unclear whether his remarks were meant to suggest that there is a legal obligation to double, or whether that is simply an obligation he assumed for himself, for whatever reason. It is perfectly clear, however, that no such legal burden exists. L40B speaks to the potential illegality of the psychic bid itself, and it is indeed possible that this particular psychic opening bid is illegally protected by undisclosed partnership understanding. But that does not affect in any way the legality of a later decision to pass or double or bid on by his partner, even when that player suspects as a matter of prior experience that his partner's call is psychic. Of course if those suspicions are based on UI, as for example a grin or other revealing mannerism, then yes, the partner might be constrained from passing in a situation that would normally call for action. Ditto for L75A. As for Full Disclosure or Active Ethics: I think that Full Disclusure is merely shorthand for the meaning of the two Laws you have cited. Active Ethics, contrary to a misimpression gaining (I fear) ever greater currency, is not actually part of the Laws. Nor is it a supplement to the Laws, in the way that minutes of the WBFLC might be considered. Active Ethics is an excellent program of player education, and it is a pity that its reputation has been tarnished so badly by those who have sought to use it as a substitute for the Laws in adjudicatory procedings. 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 Oct 19 08:45:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9IMjPD01560 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 08:45:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9IMjIt01556 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 08:45:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id SAA07563; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 18:44:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA26635; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 18:44:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 18:44:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200010182244.SAA26635@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, mlfrench@writeme.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Accepts Lead Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > Apparently dummy can in effect make the decision for declarer by > spreading hir hand immediately. If this is possibly done deliberately > (e.g., when holding AQ in the suit led out of turn), the information > gained by declarer should be treated as unauthorized. Not so. The above is straightforward L72B1. If dummy "could have known" and winds up benefitting, adjust the score. As for the overall situation (where nobody has seen anyone else's cards), as I recall our discussion of a few years ago, the consensus was that declarer still has all his options, but dummy's actions are UI (and quite likely worth a PP). In the example case, this probably means that if declarer either accepts the lead or allows putative dummy to become declarer, there will be an adjusted score. Even choosing to make the LOOT a penalty card might be dubious. Suggestion to Grattan: in 2007, why not say that if dummy gives declarer help in choosing, the LOOT is withdrawn with no penalty? Or some other fixed action to avoid having to deal with UI? I'd be quite happy to make the exposed and withdrawn card AI to everyone, subject of course to L72B1. Come to think of it, the same idea might apply to other cases where dummy interferes with play. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 19 09:58:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9INwGh01610 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:58:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 e9INw9t01605 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:58:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13m35x-000Nh0-0V for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 00:58:06 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 00:23:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: [BLML] Ruling at the Young Chelsea MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Bd 25 KJT63 Dl N 4 V EW K3 AQ543 A95 Q74 A97 QJT6 AT82 J7654 J86 7 82 W N E S K8532 1S P 1Na Q9 P 2Ca P 2S KT92 P 3C P P At this point West (an imaginative player) stops to think, and North thinking he has passed says "I'm sure that's forcing to 3S". West now passes and 3C just makes when declarer gets the spades wrong. (I don't think 3C is forcing but that's not relevant). West calls the TD and suggests he might have bid 3D. (He really might do too). The TD is called and rules 4D=. NS appeal based on the unlikeliness of a 3D call. As an AC, English jurisprudence, what adjustment if any do you make to the TD's ruling. Believe me, the West player may well bid 3D, and the AC will accept this and will accept that West may have been stopped from bidding by the remark. 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 Thu Oct 19 09:58:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9INwBs01606 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:58:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9INw4t01600 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:58:05 +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 13m35s-000Ngw-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 00:58:00 +0100 Message-ID: <6uiv3kAXjj75EwQS@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 00:57:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. References: <001801c0390b$43545e40$0ede36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <001801c0390b$43545e40$0ede36cb@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 <001801c0390b$43545e40$0ede36cb@gillp.bigpond.com>, Peter Gill writes snip > >Only if your narrow definition of "substitution" applies for >some reason. I doubt it. Put me in with DWS on this one. > >Peter Gill >Sydney Australia. > see my sig -- John (MadDog) Probst "I agree, for what phone before fax to: 451 Mile End Road that's worth." 020 8980 4947 London E3 4PA DWS, 19/09/00 john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 19 10:20:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9J0JqC01639 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 10:19:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (mta05-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.45]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9J0Jit01635 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 10:19:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.16.142]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20001019001940.DHPQ19709.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 01:19:40 +0100 Message-ID: <001901c03962$ae033d40$8e10ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne.jones1" To: "BLML" References: <3.0.1.32.20001016175141.01216ad8@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001018184027.01223dbc@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Obligation to double after partners psychic bid? Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 01:22:34 +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 S. Dennis" To: Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 11:40 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Obligation to double after partners psychic bid? > At 02:09 PM 10/18/2000 +0200, Ben wrote: > > > >> No, of course West is not obliged to double. Which law suggests otherwise? > > > >Ben: > >May-be Full disclosure or Active ethics, > >Law 40B and Law 75A. > >Do you think Herman Filarsky was a silly old fashioned man? > > Dunno, never met him. It is unclear whether his remarks were meant to > suggest that there is a legal obligation to double, or whether that is > simply an obligation he assumed for himself, for whatever reason. It is > perfectly clear, however, that no such legal burden exists. > > L40B speaks to the potential illegality of the psychic bid itself, and it > is indeed possible that this particular psychic opening bid is illegally > protected by undisclosed partnership understanding. But that does not > affect in any way the legality of a later decision to pass or double or bid > on by his partner, even when that player suspects as a matter of prior > experience that his partner's call is psychic. Of course if those > suspicions are based on UI, as for example a grin or other revealing > mannerism, then yes, the partner might be constrained from passing in a > situation that would normally call for action. > If he has a knowledge that his partner's call may be psychic, then he has UI in exactly the same way as if his partner rolled on the floor laughing. Law 75 says that psyches are legal if there is no knowledge. Therefor this psyche is illegal, and the action may well be suspect. However, once the TD rules that the psyche is illegal, the action taken opposite it is surely irrelevant. > 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 Oct 19 10:42:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9J0gkm01658 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 10:42:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 e9J0get01654 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 10:42:40 +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 13m3n2-0000i0-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 01:42:36 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 01:34:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Attitude was 'Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke' References: <200010181620.JAA02998@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Roger Pewick writes > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Adam Beneschan >To: blml >Cc: >Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 11:20 AM >Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Attitude was 'Concession not knowing of >opponent's revoke' > snip I've not posted to this thread because I haven't yet made up my mind. However, I have long held the belief that a player revoking "could have known that his action might damage the opponents". This view does not accord with established EBU practice, and I have stopped using it in club games I direct, as well as when directing for the EBU. I'd be interested in giving this view another outing on blml. It certainly resolves the problem in this case. 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 Thu Oct 19 10:55:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9J0tb601671 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 10:55:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9J0tVt01667 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 10:55:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 17:52:54 -0700 Message-ID: <036601c03966$cdff9360$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200010182212.SAA26337@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 17:52:03 -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 Steve Willner writes, accurately: > > From: dburn@btinternet.com > > Just because > > Directors can now give L12C3 rulings, there appears to > > be a growing cult of opinion that Directors can now do > > anything at all, in order to make the game run more > > smoothly, and that anything which makes life easier for > > the Directors is now legal. This is not so. > > While David is undoubtedly referring only to his side of the Atlantic, > I regret to report that the "cult" he mentions has long been ascendent > over here. I have held hopes that it might be shrinking (again > speaking of North America), but perhaps I'm over optimistic. The "cult" in these parts has dictated the following, to make the game run more smoothly (for them): 1. A minimum of ATF matchpointing 2. A minimum number of sections (leading to 18-table monstrosities) 3. No arrow switches 4. Non-enforcement of ACBL regulations concerning: -- CCs -- Hand discussion -- Slow play -- Full disclosure 5. No mixing of Mitchell fields in two-session multi-section events 6. No discouragement of the "pro question" And that's just off the top of my head. 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 Oct 19 11:59:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9J1vSA01752 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 11:57:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9J1vMt01748 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 11:57:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.185.9] (helo=D457300) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13m4xE-0004Er-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 02:57:13 +0100 Message-ID: <00a301c0396f$bd42d240$b8b301d5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: "BLML" References: <007501c0393d$51014580$1dd736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 02:55:27 +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: > David Burn wrote: > >However, the Laws refer to a specific > >instance where a player may be substituted (Law 16A2, > >if memory serves, but I do not have the book with me). > Law 16B2 Close enough, as my American wife often and mysteriously says, for government work. > but it refers to the noun "substitute" (not the verb). > This seems to add weight to my argument that the word > "substitution" in Law 4 does not mean "substitute", making > the DWS/PG position seem to become an even more > accurate summation of what a Director can legally do. Peter, I have tried to make it clear in several ways that if it were to be found that a replacement of the kind made in the actual event was a "substitution" that could be sanctioned by the Director under Law 4, I personally would accept that finding. For myself, I agree with you (as I have said) that the words themselves admit of that interpretation. But it is not a universally accepted interpretation, and in the context of a bridge tournament it has one or two obvious flaws; hence, I have tried to pursue the argument on the basis that it is not a valid interpretation. Your argument is, insofar as I have understood it, that the question of a "session" does not arise, for the Director could authorise the subsitution in any case. I do not make now, nor have I ever made, a comment as to what I personally think of that argument. I say merely that if that argument were to find favour, then the question of what constitues a "session" would become irrelevant, for the "substitution" would in all cases be permissible. To put this another way: you are addressing yourself to the question of whether the parenthesis in Law 4 is sufficient to allow the replacement that actually happened; I am addressing myself to the question of whether, supposing that the parenthesis did not allow the replacement, it could have been allowed by other means. You and I have no quarrel with one another, since we are addressing different questions. We both, it appears to me, think that the replacement ought to have been allowed in "human" terms. > And I added that in this case, an analysis of the > relevant Law (#4), if its words are assumed to be > deliberately rather than carelessly chosen ["inferiorly" > or irrationally if you prefer :) ], IMO backs up his ruling. Since you insist: law 4 refers to "substitutions authorised by the Director". This does not of itself imply that the Director may authorise any kind of substitution; rather that when the Director is permitted to authorise a particular kind of substitution, the provisions of Law 4 cease to apply to a substitution (or indeed a "substitute", which is a noun as well as a verb) so authorised. > I repeat my position that the use of different words in > Laws 4 and 16B2 seems to suggest that the Laws are > not intended to stuff up the Director in Anne's case. This is simply the "cult of the Director" to which I have already referred. Whether or not the Laws "stuff up" the Director, or the player who claims, or the player who revokes, is a matter of surpassing indifference. What the Laws are "intended to" say is wholly and utterly irrelevant; the only thing that matters is what the Laws do in fact say. > This > is the gist of what DWS wrote, isn't it: that in this particular > case the Laws do not interfere in the manner in which > people in this thread have been claiming they do. Yes, of course it is. It is usually the gist of what DWS says that in any particular case, the Laws do not interfere with his opinion of what they ought to mean. But I will be accused of personal animosity if I make remarks like that. > I still agree with DWS. So do I, most of the time, though he does not believe it. On this occasion, however... > >I can only say that having > >discussed the situation with someone in a position of > >some authority (in this country at least) > > David Burn previously wrote: > >>>Aware of this difficulty, Max Bavin has for some time > >>>taken considerable care that a "session" in terms of > >>>Law 4 is clearly defined in the Conditions of Contest > >>>for EBU events. Nothing in this incident would surprise > >>>him or the rest of the EBU in the least. Speaking to Max today, he told me that he had seven different definitions of a "session". One related to correction periods, one related to changes of lineup, one related to TDs' salaries, one related to the arrangements he made with tournament venues, and the other three were in case some smartass asked him what a session was. > Why not then define "substitution" too, so that we know > what's going on? Know what's going on? Peter, if we did that, this invaluable list and most of the Universe as we know it would simply cease to exist. > Even my little backwater has defined > 'substitution', despite the lack of full-time bridge employees > down under making all bridge admin round these parts very > difficult. "Substitution" happens to be defined in the Regulations > of my local SO (the NSWBA, who are part of the ABF). Both the > NSWBA and the ABF are not always inclined to dot every i in > their Regulations, by the way. As I believe they say where you live, good on yer, mate. I regret that we didn't actually meet in Maastricht, though I suppose that we both had more pressing things to do. Should the occasion arise again, I promise not to punch you on the nose for agreeing with DWS, as long as you promise not to punch me on the nose for disagreeing with him. > I didn't mean to offend Mr Bavin by my previous paragraph > and apologise if I stepped over the line. Nobody's perfect. > Otherwise we'd all be able to beat those Italian bridge > players. Perfect? We're not even adequate. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 19 13:08:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9J37GM01796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:07:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9J37At01792 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:07:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcaui10.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.72.32]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA18341 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 23:07:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <005c01c03979$9d539320$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <3.0.1.32.20001011215632.0121528c@pop.mindspring.com> <015d01c03397$05a74360$71b6f1c3@kooijman> <3.0.1.32.20001011215632.0121528c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001013163335.01218750@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001015133232.01226064@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001017204430.01223ef4@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001018180123.01225184@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 23:06:45 -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: "Michael S. Dennis" To: Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 6:01 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke > > Back to the original problem. Imagine that South plays the hand out rather > than conceding the last two tricks. If he playes a diamond, West wins the > last two tricks, and we therefore transfer only one trick, per L64. If > instead South leads a spade to trick 12, East wins the last two tricks, > including one with a card he could have played to the revoke trick, and so > South is awarded a two-trick revoke bonus. > > Now what differentiates these two situations, other than the size of the > revoke penalty? With no thought of a possible revoke, there is no bridge > reason at all for South to play one of these losing cards before the other. > The EW team have won two tricks in both cases, so the effect of the revoke > upon the total number of tricks won is the same, regardless of which > defender wins them. The original revoke is just as serious a crime in one > case as in the other. And yet the revoke Laws treat them differently. That > is the system we have, and it is exactly as I have described it: various > entirely equivalent actions earn different revoke penalties. > Mike, We are debating what the penalty for the revoke after a claim/concession should be under the Laws. If you want to debate about whether the revoke laws are fair, that's another story entirely. And please don't let me get started on "equity"... > And while I am arguing that declarer should in some instances receive a > smaller revoke bonus after a concession than he might otherwise, you are > arguing that declarer should in fact receive a larger bonus after a > concession than he might otherwise, relying upon a mythical legal principle > in defense of your position. > > Mike Dennis > -- "Rule for the NOS when in doubt" is not mythical principle. The principle is explicitly stated when an adjusted score is being considered (84D and 84E), however, you are correct that L85 is silent on how to rule when the facts of the case are in dispute. All it says is that we have to rule something. As a matter of pragmatic reality, there will be times when the TD is really in doubt, and not able to make a satisfactory determination of the facts. When that occurs, we still have to rule and keep the game moving. I was taught that when the facts that we can establish do not favor either side, and one side has committed a clear infraction, rule in favor of the NOS, and let the burden of appeal fall to the OS. This seems so intuitively obvious to me that I cannot imagine ruling otherwise. I can see no benefit to random rulings in this situation, or to giving the benefit of the doubt to the side who has committed an infraction. Do we really need a footnote to L85? 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 Oct 19 13:23:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9J3NJX01813 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:23:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9J3NDt01809 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:23:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ives1b.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.112.43]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA29820 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 23:23:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001018232247.01224060@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 23:22:47 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] Obligation to double after partners psychic bid? In-Reply-To: <001101c03962$90acdd00$8e10ff3e@vnmvhhid> References: <3.0.1.32.20001016175141.01216ad8@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001018184027.01223dbc@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 01:21 AM 10/19/2000 +0100, Anne wrote: > >> L40B speaks to the potential illegality of the psychic bid itself, and it >> is indeed possible that this particular psychic opening bid is illegally >> protected by undisclosed partnership understanding. But that does not >> affect in any way the legality of a later decision to pass or double or >bid >> on by his partner, even when that player suspects as a matter of prior >> experience that his partner's call is psychic. Of course if those >> suspicions are based on UI, as for example a grin or other revealing >> mannerism, then yes, the partner might be constrained from passing in a >> situation that would normally call for action. >> >If he has a knowledge that his partner's call may be psychic, then he has UI >in exactly the same way as if his partner rolled on the floor laughing. Law >75 says that psyches are legal if there is no knowledge. Therefor this >psyche is illegal, and the action may well be suspect. However, once the TD >rules that the psyche is illegal, the action taken opposite it is surely >irrelevant. Knowledge of partnership methods is not UI. It is certainly against the laws to make a psychic bid protected by undisclosed partnership agreement, but it is not against the law for the partner of a psychic bidder to base his own decisions on that knowledge, any more than it would be to base a different bidding decision on the fact that the partnership has agreed to play 2D as Flannery. 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 Oct 19 13:51:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9J3pYE01831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:51:34 +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 e9J3pRt01827 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:51:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ives1b.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.112.43]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA03188 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 23:51:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001018235103.01226c28@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 23:51:03 -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: <005c01c03979$9d539320$0200000a@mindspring.com> References: <3.0.1.32.20001011215632.0121528c@pop.mindspring.com> <015d01c03397$05a74360$71b6f1c3@kooijman> <3.0.1.32.20001011215632.0121528c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001013163335.01218750@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001015133232.01226064@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001017204430.01223ef4@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001018180123.01225184@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 11:06 PM 10/18/2000 -0400, Hirsch wrote: >> Back to the original problem. Imagine that South plays the hand out >rather >> than conceding the last two tricks. If he playes a diamond, West >wins the >> last two tricks, and we therefore transfer only one trick, per L64. >If >> instead South leads a spade to trick 12, East wins the last two >tricks, >> including one with a card he could have played to the revoke trick, >and so >> South is awarded a two-trick revoke bonus. >> >> Now what differentiates these two situations, other than the size of >the >> revoke penalty? With no thought of a possible revoke, there is no >bridge >> reason at all for South to play one of these losing cards before the >other. >> The EW team have won two tricks in both cases, so the effect of the >revoke >> upon the total number of tricks won is the same, regardless of which >> defender wins them. The original revoke is just as serious a crime >in one >> case as in the other. And yet the revoke Laws treat them >differently. That >> is the system we have, and it is exactly as I have described it: >various >> entirely equivalent actions earn different revoke penalties. >> > >Mike, > >We are debating what the penalty for the revoke after a >claim/concession should be under the Laws. If you want to debate >about whether the revoke laws are fair, that's another story entirely. >And please don't let me get started on "equity"... My example was in response to a comment from Herman. I had pointed out that the revoke Laws have the property that entirely equivalent situations are often treated differently under those Laws. I was making the point that the criticism that the result of my interpretation resulted in a fairly arbitrary difference between cases that "should" be similar was misguided: this seemingly arbitrary quality is inherent to those Laws, regardless of whether my interpretation or some other prevails. > >"Rule for the NOS when in doubt" is not mythical principle. The >principle is explicitly stated when an adjusted score is being >considered (84D and 84E), however, you are correct that L85 is silent >on how to rule when the facts of the case are in dispute. All it says >is that we have to rule something. As a matter of pragmatic reality, >there will be times when the TD is really in doubt, and not able to >make a satisfactory determination of the facts. When that occurs, we >still have to rule and keep the game moving. I was taught that when >the facts that we can establish do not favor either side, and one side >has committed a clear infraction, rule in favor of the NOS, and let >the burden of appeal fall to the OS. This seems so intuitively >obvious to me that I cannot imagine ruling otherwise. I can see no >benefit to random rulings in this situation, or to giving the benefit >of the doubt to the side who has committed an infraction. Do we >really need a footnote to L85? The language of L84D and L84E is entirely irrelevant. L84D concerns the TD's responsibility when the Laws allow for a choice between a specified penalty and an adjusted score, which is not the case here. But even if we somehow judged 84D to apply, it would only support my position, because its primary injunction is to restore equity, only secondarily enjoining us to rule in favor of the NOS in doubtful situations. L64C already guarantees the protection of the equity of the NOS in this circumstance. Declarer is certainly entitled to be credited with whatever tricks he would have taken, absent the revoke, and without knowing the details of the whole hand, I cannot say whether my recommended 1-trick penalty will merely restore equity or provide declarer with an extra, unearned trick. Doesn't really matter, since that's the law. And if I should judge that declarer in fact had a reasonable shot at all 13 tricks, in the absence of the revoke, then that's what he'll get. And of course L84E is irrelevant on its face: it applies when no penalty is assigned by law. Here there is at least a 1-trick penalty (my position) under L64A1, and the argument is only about whether that or an additional penalty is called for by Law. Finally, as you point out, L85 a) does not apply, since it deals with disputed facts and b)offers no guidance that suggests anything about ruling in favor of the NOS. But it is this tendency to borrow language completely outside of the context of the original problem to uncover a "general principle" with which to defend one's position that I find deeply troubling in this thread. Nearly everyone accepts at face value that the Laws express a general principle of "when in doubt, rule for the NOS", but it simply is not so. There are a number of specific cases in which that advice is made plain, but not as a broadly applicable principle. Likewise for the suggestion that we should look to L70, dealing with contested claims, to find some deeper truth to apply to a revoke situation that involves no claim and is not contested. 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 Oct 19 16:55:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9J6rsv01903 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:53:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.email.msn.com (cpimssmtpu08.email.msn.com [207.46.181.30]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9J6rmt01899 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:53:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from uymfdlvk - 63.23.17.19 by email.msn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 23:54:27 -0700 Message-ID: <0abb01c03998$ed07d6a0$c21f173f@uymfdlvk> Reply-To: "Chris Pisarra" From: "Chris Pisarra" To: References: <200010181620.JAA02998@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Attitude was 'Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke' Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 23:50:50 -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 Mad Dog Probst wrote > I have long held the belief that a player revoking "could have > known that his action might damage the opponents". This view does not > accord with established EBU practice, and I have stopped using it in > club games I direct, as well as when directing for the EBU. Revoking with knowledge that it might damage ones opponents would only work if the revoke was then concealed. That would indeed be a serious offense, essentially intentional, planned cheating. I hardly think that behavior explains more than 0.0000000003% of the revokes that occur. The remainder are inadvertent. I have revoked far too many times in my life, and never once been aware that my action might damage the opponents, because if I **had** been so aware, I wouldn't have revoked in the first place. 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 Thu Oct 19 17:48:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9J7mf401931 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 17:48:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9J7mYt01927 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 17:48:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA14151 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:48:30 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Oct 19 09:50:42 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 <01JVIMI9TYAY000Y0G@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:47:29 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:44:09 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:47:28 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Ruling at the Young Chelsea To: "'John Probst'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6E2@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 Normally I am not too eager to give rulings in these situations. It is nothing but exposing ignorance in such a group. But you made some statements I don't understand. Why do you say it doesn't matter whether 3C is forcing? We agree that north created an irregularity and should be penalized for that. But if what he said is true how can west be damaged? And what do you mean with: the AC will accept that west might be stopped from bidding 3D? There was an AC giving this statement? I am almost sure that the real south hand was 82 Q853 QJ94 KT9 and that you want us to give the wrong answer! Or is the most important information that this happened at the Young Chelsea? By the way a nice and obvious example of not allowing south to change his pass after the remark and before west's bid. Yes, 25B still exists. ton > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: John (MadDog) Probst [mailto:john@probst.demon.co.uk] > Verzonden: donderdag 19 oktober 2000 1:23 > Aan: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Onderwerp: [BLML] Ruling at the Young Chelsea > > > Bd 25 KJT63 > Dl N 4 > V EW K3 > AQ543 > A95 Q74 > A97 QJT6 > AT82 J7654 > J86 7 > 82 W N E S > K8532 1S P 1Na > Q9 P 2Ca P 2S > KT92 P 3C P P > > At this point West (an imaginative player) stops to think, > and North thinking he has passed says "I'm sure that's > forcing to 3S". West now passes and 3C just makes when declarer > gets the spades wrong. (I don't think 3C is forcing but that's > not relevant). > > West calls the TD and suggests he might have bid 3D. (He really > might do too). The TD is called and rules 4D=. NS appeal > based on the unlikeliness of a 3D call. > > As an AC, English jurisprudence, what adjustment if any do > you make to the TD's ruling. Believe me, the West player > may well bid 3D, and the AC will accept this and will accept > that West may have been stopped from bidding by the remark. > > 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 19 18:42:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9J8cqG01964 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 18:38:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xion.spase.nl (router.spase.nl [213.53.246.249]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9J8cht01960 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 18:38:44 +1000 (EST) Received: by xion.spase.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <4YTR5YJH>; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 10:36:42 +0200 Message-ID: From: Martin Sinot To: bridge-laws Subject: RE: [BLML] Dummy Accepts Lead Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 10:36:22 +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: >> It isn't a violation of 42A1 because ... a putative dummy is not yet a >> dummy! > >Law 41C: ....the opening lead (out of turn) is faced, the play period begins >. . . >That means there is not a putative dummy any more, but a dummy. Dummy may >not .... see Laws 42B3 and 43A1c. Moreover: see definitions (who ever reads them :) ) Dummy: 1. Declarer's partner. He becomes dummy when the opening lead is faced ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 2. Declarer's partner's cards, once they are spread on the table after the opening lead. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 19 19:53:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9J9rFv02007 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 19:53:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9J9rAt02003 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 19:53:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot21.domain3.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ma355796 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 19:52:57 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-211-215.tmns.net.au ([203.54.211.215]) by mail3.bigpond.com (Claudes-Fumigated-MailRouter V2.9c 5/7419843); 19 Oct 2000 19:52:52 Message-ID: <000201c039ba$b608bc60$d7d336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling at the Young Chelsea Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 20:48:45 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: >Bd 25 KJT63 >Dl N 4 >V EW K3 > AQ543 >A95 Q74 >A97 QJT6 >AT82 J7654 >J86 7 > 82 W N E S > K8532 1S P 1Na > Q9 P 2Ca P 2S > KT92 P 3C P P > >At this point West (an imaginative player) stops to think, >and North thinking he has passed says "I'm sure that's >forcing to 3S". West now passes and 3C just makes when declarer >gets the spades wrong. (I don't think 3C is forcing but that's >not relevant). > >West calls the TD and suggests he might have bid 3D. (He really >might do too). The TD is called and rules 4D=. NS appeal >based on the unlikeliness of a 3D call. > >As an AC, English jurisprudence, what adjustment if any do >you make to the TD's ruling. Believe me, the West player >may well bid 3D, and the AC will accept this and will accept >that West may have been stopped from bidding by the remark. I find this one impossible to comment about fully when reading the summary on paper. I'd need to be on the AC and speak to the players to find out whether it's approriate to adjust the score. If the score is to be adjusted, then 130 to EW seems OK. 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 Oct 19 20:25:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9JAP0P02031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 20:25:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9JAOst02027 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 20:24:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.184.210] (helo=D457300) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13mCsT-0002o3-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 11:24:49 +0100 Message-ID: <006301c039b6$a6ca97e0$d2b801d5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: "BLML" References: <00e501c0383a$1f6d76a0$dfd636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 11:23:03 +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 Peter wrote, some time ago: > Sounds to me like Player 5 wanted to start play in the middle > of a session, so we move on to the part of Law 4 which is in > brackets. If there is no SO definition of "substitute" in Anne's > region then I suppose a slightly warped interpretation of that > word by the TD is possible, allowing the bracketed part of > Law 4 to take effect. I don't like it much though. But it appears to have grown on him, for he later writes: > Law 4 specificallly uses the word "substitution" rather then > the word "substitute". This seems to make DWS's logic > impeccable IMO. In the absence of definition of the word > "substitution", a logical Director should interpret the word > as [it is defined in a dictionary]. Now, one is entitled to disagree with oneself, and inflexibility of mind is a fearsome thing. Having gone to great lengths to indicate that I would accept a judgement that the parenthesis in Law 4 might allow the replacement of a player by a team-mate part way through a session, I now respectfully disagree with myself. These are the words in question: In pair or team events, the contestants enter as pairs or teams and retain the same partnerships throughout a session (except in the case of substitutions authorised by the Director). It has been held that these words in themselves permit the authorising of substitutions by the Director, and such a reading is linguistically possible. I do not think, however, that it is the correct reading (and neither, as I have said, does the EBU's Chief Tournament Director). If it were the correct reading, I think the Law would have been written: In pair or team events, the contestants enter as pairs or teams. Except where authorised by the Director, contestants retain the same partnerships throughout a session. This would explicitly give to the Director the power that DWS and John Probst believe that he has anyway. But as the Law stands, I believe that the implication of the parenthesis is this: In pair or team events, the contestants enter as pairs or teams and retain the same partnerships throughout a session (except in the case of substitutions that may be authorised by the Director in accordance with the remainder of these Laws). To put this another way, Law 4 does not empower the Director to authorise any kind of substitution. It refers only to substitutions that the Director is elsewhere empowered to make, and says that the provisions of Law 4 do not apply when such substitutions have been made. John Probst writes: > The point I was trying to make was that, if the CoC permit a team to > consist of more than four members then, it is simply nonsense to stop a > player playing during a particular phase (in this case the qualifier) of > the competition. It is up to the TD to ensure that this player can > play, otherwise he is ignoring the CoC. The TD has Law 81 duties as well > as Law 4 obligations. Yes, but nowhere in Law 81 does it say that the TD is supposed to ensure that everyone who turns up will get a game regardless of the rest of the Laws. If the CoC permit a team to consist of more than four players, but also stipulate that this is a one-session event (so that changes of line-up are not possible), then the CoC are ridiculous. But this does not mean that the Laws may be broken in order to render the CoC non-ridiculous. Suppose that the CoC were to say: during this event, hearts will outrank spades. Would the TD be compelled to rule that a 1S overcall of 1H was an insufficient bid? In truth, of course, this is not what happened. The CoC did not bother to stipulate whether or not this was a one-session event. Unfortunately, in the absence of such a stipulation, the Welsh appear to have agreed to be bound by the definition of a "session" in the EBU White Book, quoted by Anne Jones: 79.12.2. Multiple Teams, Pairs and Individual competitions. In all these competitions a session ends when the programme provides an interval of at least 30mins before the resumption of play and a score to that stage is calculated. The score is available when posted for inspection by the players. so that this really was a one-session event, although nobody knew that it was (and that the permission for teams to consist of more than four players was therefore ridiculous). It may be of interest that the fifth team member, after considering the matter, does not now think he ought to have been allowed to play! DWS writes: >Whether you recall it or not, that is precisely what I said. >But since your whole argument was based on just being as bloody rude as necessary, we would not want the facts to come between you and your opinions, would we? I do not understand a word of this. If the facts are as I have stated them, if I have not misquoted or misrepresented DWS's views, then how can the facts possibly come between me and my opinions? The facts appear to me to be these: the event consisted of one session; the replacement of a player by a team-mate may occur in Law only after a session has ended and before the next session begins; there is a reference in Law 4 to "substitutions authorised by the Director", but this is not relevant; therefore the replacement that happened was not legal and in allowing it, the TD acted in a manner that was beyond his power. DWS also writes: David Burn wrote: A variety of stuff, some of which attacks my honesty and my integrity. I tried to write an answer, but it is too distressing. Burn has decided to produce a weak argument, and strengthen it by abusive tactics. I consider him totally wrong, but feel unable to say why. Is it really necessary for him to attack me personally? No, otherwise I would do it. I have nowhere said that DWS is lacking either in honesty or in integrity. I have said, and continue to say, that his view of this matter is wrong, and that his implication that the Laws are the servant of the Director is dangerous, for the converse is actually true. My argument is not, as far as I can see, as weak as all that - it is, in effect, the same argument as Grattan's and has the support of Max Bavin (not to mention the support of the substitute in question, which I suppose ought to count for something). If, as may very well be, my interpretation of the situation is not correct, then it should be trivially possible to say why. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 19 21:10:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9JB7mw02122 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 21:07:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mgw-x3.nokia.com (mgw-x3.nokia.com [131.228.20.26]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9JB7ft02118 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 21:07:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from esebh03nok.ntc.nokia.com (esebh03nok.ntc.nokia.com [131.228.118.244]) by mgw-x3.nokia.com (8.10.2/8.10.2/Nokia) with ESMTP id e9JB7WB07859 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 14:07:32 +0300 (EET DST) Received: by esebh03nok with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2652.78) id ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 14:02:26 +0300 Message-ID: From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Ruling at the Young Chelsea Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 14:02:24 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2652.78) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: EXT Kooijman, A. [mailto:A.Kooijman@DWK.AGRO.NL] > Sent: 19. October 2000 10:47 > To: 'John Probst'; bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: RE: [BLML] Ruling at the Young Chelsea > > > Normally I am not too eager to give rulings in these situations. It is > nothing but exposing ignorance in such a group. I have to be missing something here. Whose ignorance? The poster's or the BLMLers'? Or TD's? Why? Konrad C. (C like confused) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 19 21:24:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9JBNaL02164 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 21:23:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9JBNTt02160 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 21:23:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id NAA22671 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:23:26 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Oct 19 13:25:47 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 <01JVIU1JJ9BA000YBH@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:23:03 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:19:44 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:23:01 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Teams of Four. To: "'David Burn'" , BLML Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6E3@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 > John Probst writes: > > > The point I was trying to make was that, if the CoC permit a team to > > consist of more than four members then, it is simply > nonsense to stop > a > > player playing during a particular phase (in this case the > qualifier) > of > > the competition. It is up to the TD to ensure that this player can > > play, otherwise he is ignoring the CoC. The TD has Law 81 duties as > well > > as Law 4 obligations. > > Yes, but nowhere in Law 81 does it say that the TD is > supposed to ensure > that everyone who turns up will get a game regardless of the > rest of the > Laws. To reply on your level of debating: That is not what D.S. or J.P. are saying. Do you really think that the TD is every team's captain? He is there to ensure that the team gets the opportunity to have nr. 5 playing. That nr.5 seems to agree with you is not very convincing. If he was from Wales he might not know better, if I understand the situation well. If the CoC permit a team to consist of more than four > players, but > also stipulate that this is a one-session event (so that changes of > line-up are not possible), then the CoC are ridiculous. But this does > not mean that the Laws may be broken in order to render the CoC > non-ridiculous. Suppose that the CoC were to say: during this event, > hearts will outrank spades. Would the TD be compelled to rule > that a 1S > overcall of 1H was an insufficient bid? Since we all know that the CofC will not say so, unless for the X-mas game, this does not help the discussion. If I had been CTD there I would not have broken the laws (by purpose) but would have amended/improved the regulations to make it possible to have nr. 5 playing. In my Wales everybody would have agreed with that and nr. 5 would have been grateful. Something else: the definition of session needs much more attention in a pairs event, where the artificial adjusted score to give depends on it. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 19 21:48:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9JBmWR02187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 21:48:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9JBmPt02183 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 21:48:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id NAA30505 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:48:21 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Oct 19 13:50:39 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 <01JVIUWL20JE000YCC@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:48:05 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:44:45 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:48:02 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Ruling at the Young Chelsea To: "'Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6E4@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 > > > > Normally I am not too eager to give rulings in these > situations. It is > > nothing but exposing MY ignorance in such a group. ton, showing it at once (what? Ignorance about language) > > I have to be missing something here. Whose ignorance? The poster's > or the BLMLers'? Or TD's? Why? > > > > Konrad C. (C like confused) > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Oct 19 22:03:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9JC3Vm02253 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 22:03:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9JC3Pt02249 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 22:03:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-10-102.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.10.102]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA21625 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 14:03:20 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39EEB36C.9642228F@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 10:40:12 +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: [BLML] advantage of 2Sp Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello All, Allow me to ask you a poll. Of a strange nature. I am asked, by the Flemish Bridge magazine, to calculate the advantage or disadvantage of 2Sp versus 1NT, when holding 5HCP and a 5332 opposite a 15-17 1NT opener. The calculations are hard, of course, and I will be posting a copy, but there is one very crucial piece of information, needed for the final analysis. How many tricks would one make MORE in 2Sp compared to 1NT when holding: 5 spades opposite 2 ? 5 spades opposite 3 ? 5 spades opposite 4 ? I would like to hear your personal opinion, in number of tricks (decimals allowed and encouraged !). Please private e-mails, in order not to influence one another. I'll be giving a summary later. As a teaser, I can tell you that it matters ! And that the vulnerability plays a part ! And the number of points you are holding ! (0 and 5 do not give the same answer, with my current estimate) Would you think the difference in tricks is substantially larger or smaller when holding 0 HCP rather than 5 ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 19 22:15:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9JCEre02290 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 22:14:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tantalum.btinternet.com (tantalum.btinternet.com [194.73.73.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9JCElt02286 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 22:14:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.66.239] (helo=D457300) by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13mEam-0007ZK-00; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:14:41 +0100 Message-ID: <000701c039c5$fcc84de0$ef42073e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: "Kooijman, A." , "BLML" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6E3@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:12:50 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ton writes: [DB] > > Yes, but nowhere in Law 81 does it say that the TD is supposed to ensure that everyone who turns up will get a game regardless of the rest of the Laws. [TK] > To reply on your level of debating: That is not what D.S. or J.P. are > saying. Do you really think that the TD is every team's captain? He is there > to ensure that the team gets the opportunity to have nr. 5 playing. That > nr.5 seems to agree with you is not very convincing. If he was from Wales he > might not know better, if I understand the situation well. Oh, they know a thing or two in Wales. Number Five is in the process of writing regulations which mean that he can play next time. Some good has come of it, after all. [DB] >If the CoC permit a team to consist of more than four players, but also stipulate that this is a one-session event (so that changes of line-up are not possible), then the CoC are ridiculous. But this does not mean that the Laws may be broken in order to render the CoC non-ridiculous. Suppose that the CoC were to say: during this event, hearts will outrank spades. Would the TD be compelled to rule that a 1S overcall of 1H was an insufficient bid? [TK] > Since we all know that the CofC will not say so, unless for the X-mas game, > this does not help the discussion. I must try to be more literal, I see. What I was attempting was to provide an obvious and exaggerated example of a ridiculous Condition of Contest that was in conflict with the Laws, in order to illustrate the point that if the CoC and the Laws are in conflict, the Laws must prevail. I am sorry if I have been unhelpful. [TK] > If I had been CTD there I would not have broken the laws (by purpose) but would have amended/improved the regulations to make it possible to have nr. 5 playing. That would have been fine, except that I don't think even you can do it. Law 82B2 says: The Director is bound by these Laws and by supplementary regulations announced by the sponsoring organisation. Now, if you are bound by a set of regulations, I do not think this empowers you to change them just because you don't like them. There is a regulation, by which the Welsh Bridge Union has agreed to be bound, which says that in default of any specific CoC, a session ends when there is a scoring break and a 30-minute interval. This event was run, I believe, by the East Wales region, which is a subordinate body of the WBU and is, as far as I know, bound by the regulations that the WBU has adopted. The Director acts as the official representative of the SO, for Law 81A says so - but I do not think that this gives him the power to amend or over-ride regulations adopted by that SO simply because he does not think they ought to apply. Of course, I may be wrong about this - it is a question for other heads than mine. [TK] > In my Wales everybody would have agreed with that and nr. 5 would have been grateful. A popular piece of graffiti many years ago read: "Free Wales - and Moby Dick for President". I am sure that were "Ton Kooijman" to be substituted for "Moby Dick", the campaign would sweep the country. Provided, of course, that such a substitution was considered legal... > Something else: the definition of session needs much more attention in a pairs event, where the artificial adjusted score to give depends on it. True. But in a pairs event, there is a very much closer correspondence between an actual playing session and a "session" for the purposes of the Laws. People do not change partnerships very often in the course of a pairs event, however much some of my partners may have wished otherwise. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 19 23:20:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9JDKJK02386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 23:20:20 +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 e9JDKCt02382 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 23:20:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id PAA20180 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 15:20:08 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Oct 19 15:22:29 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 <01JVIY3KKVOG000YIH@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 15:19:13 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 15:15:54 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 15:19:10 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Teams of Four. To: "'David Burn'" , "Kooijman, A." , BLML Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6E5@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David: Suppose that the CoC were to say: during this event, hearts > will outrank > spades. Would the TD be compelled to rule that a 1S overcall of 1H was > an insufficient bid? > > [TK] > > Since we all know that the CofC will not say so, unless for > the X-mas > game, > > this does not help the discussion. > > I must try to be more literal, I see. What I was attempting was to > provide an obvious and exaggerated example of a ridiculous > Condition of > Contest that was in conflict with the Laws, in order to illustrate the > point that if the CoC and the Laws are in conflict, the Laws must > prevail. I am sorry if I have been unhelpful. What I tried to say is that there was a conflict within the CofC itself here. Allowing teams of 6 to register but not allowing more than 4 to play. I would have solved that by making the choice not to send players home but by altering the definition of session. > > [TK] > > If I had been CTD there I would not have broken the laws > (by purpose) > but would have amended/improved the regulations to make it possible to > have nr. 5 playing. > > That would have been fine, except that I don't think even you > can do it. > Law 82B2 says: > > The Director is bound by these Laws and by supplementary regulations > announced by the sponsoring organisation. > Don't underestimate what I can do: Law 81C3 tells me to establish suitable conditions of play and to announce them to the players. And 81C3 comes before 82B2 (hurray for Edgar Kaplan) > Law 81A says so - but I do not think that this gives him the power to > amend or over-ride regulations adopted by that SO simply > because he does > not think they ought to apply. As I tried to explain: how to apply it all? Of course, I may be wrong > about this - I think you are right but it doesn't apply. Can we agree that it certainly would have been wrong to send nr. 5 home and then to change the definition making it possible for him to play? > In my Wales everybody would have agreed with that and nr. 5 > would have > been grateful. > > A popular piece of graffiti many years ago read: "Free Wales > - and Moby > Dick for President". I am sure that were "Ton Kooijman" to be > substituted for "Moby Dick", the campaign would sweep the country. > Provided, of course, that such a substitution was considered legal... > I could have removed this but it reads nicely. > > Something else: the definition of session needs much more > attention in > a pairs event, where the artificial adjusted score to give depends on > it. > > True. But in a pairs event, there is a very much closer correspondence > between an actual playing session and a "session" for the purposes of > the Laws. Not in my Wales, where we start the pairs competition with say 16 boards and then have a lunch break after which we play another 32 or so. Therefore we needed to define the session as something not related to the obvious choices. The Wales definition wouldn't do much good. ton My Wales > 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 Oct 20 01:29:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9JFSvm02547 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 01:28:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9JFSot02541 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 01:28:51 +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 LAA03028 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 11:28:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA01934 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 11:28:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 11:28:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200010191528.LAA01934@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Attitude was 'Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke' X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > However, I have long held the belief that a player revoking "could have > known that his action might damage the opponents". I think you could say that for some revokes, say ones in trumps or that create a stopper in an otherwise useful suit, or even ones that induce declarer to claim or concede. I don't see how you could say "could have known" where the revoke has no obvious effect. If John's view is accepted, he could apply L72B1 and give an adjusted score under L12C2/L12C3 for "meaningful" revokes, but I don't see how it helps the general problem in this thread. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 20 01:34:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9JFYHw02573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 01:34:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9JFYBt02569 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 01:34:11 +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 LAA03331 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 11:34:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA01951 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 11:34:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 11:34:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200010191534.LAA01951@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "David Burn" > Speaking to Max today, he told me that he had seven different > definitions of a "session". One related to correction periods, one > related to changes of lineup, one related to TDs' salaries, one related > to the arrangements he made with tournament venues, and the other three > were in case some smartass asked him what a session was. Next time you see him, you might tell him he needs an eighth: the one related to appeals periods. (He will probably say it's the same as the one related to correction periods, but you never know.) > I must try to be more literal, I see. What I was attempting was to > provide an obvious and exaggerated example of a ridiculous Condition of > Contest that was in conflict with the Laws, If the CoC say hearts outrank spades, I think that's the way the TD has to rule: L80E. I just hope the SO (and TD as its representative) made all the players aware of the situation before they paid their entry fees. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 20 02:01:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9JG1RU02616 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 02:01:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9JG1Kt02612 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 02:01:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.0.ap (guppy)) id RAA29771; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 17:59:27 +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 SAA11640; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 18:01:05 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001019181137.007f3d60@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 18:11:37 +0200 To: "Ben Schelen" , "bridge-laws" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Accepts Lead In-Reply-To: <04f201c03948$6c1ad420$af033dd4@default> References: <3.0.6.32.20001018165803.007c6820@pop.ozemail.com.au> <007e01c0390a$cb8f5b80$2f99fac1@beauvillain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 19:30 18/10/00 +0200, Ben Schelen wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "olivier beauvillain" > > >> It isn't a violation of 42A1 because ... a putative dummy is not yet a >> dummy! > >Law 41C: ....the opening lead (out of turn) is faced, the play period begins >. . . >That means there is not a putative dummy any more, but a dummy. Dummy may >not .... see Laws 42B3 and 43A1c. AG : it's even easier than that ! See at 'Dummy' in definitions, Chapter I. (by the way, this is why an unfaced opening lead isn't a lead 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 Oct 20 02:14:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9JGEKI02637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 02:14:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9JGEDt02633 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 02:14:14 +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 SAA05352; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 18:12:22 +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 SAA17110; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 18:14:01 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001019182433.008cb760@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 18:24:33 +0200 To: "John Probst" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling at the Young Chelsea 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 00:23 19/10/00 +0100, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: AG : to me, this is an easy case. The mere fact that West took some time proves he was considering something else than passing. If not 3D (imaginative, to say the least), then perhaps a reopening double. Thus, North had a strange mannerism at a time where 'he knew it could serve him'. The following facts are irrelevant : a) Whether North knew that West had not bid b) Whether West would eventually acted c) Whether 3D (or double) is a normal action Adjust the score (to 4D =, if you think this is the max number of tricks EW could make in a diamond contract). +1 would not be absurd (spade lead from North). Bd 25 KJT63 >Dl N 4 >V EW K3 > AQ543 >A95 Q74 >A97 QJT6 >AT82 J7654 >J86 7 > 82 W N E S > K8532 1S P 1Na > Q9 P 2Ca P 2S > KT92 P 3C P P > >At this point West (an imaginative player) stops to think, >and North thinking he has passed says "I'm sure that's >forcing to 3S". West now passes and 3C just makes when declarer >gets the spades wrong. (I don't think 3C is forcing but that's >not relevant). > >West calls the TD and suggests he might have bid 3D. (He really >might do too). The TD is called and rules 4D=. NS appeal >based on the unlikeliness of a 3D call. > >As an AC, English jurisprudence, what adjustment if any do >you make to the TD's ruling. Believe me, the West player >may well bid 3D, and the AC will accept this and will accept >that West may have been stopped from bidding by the remark. > > 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/ > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 20 03:01:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9JH0rN02731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 03:00:53 +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 e9JH0bt02714 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 03:00:38 +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 13mJ3P-000Px9-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 18:00:31 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:46:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6E3@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6E3@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 In article <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6E3@fdwag002s.fd.agro.n l>, Kooijman, A. writes snip > >Something else: the definition of session needs much more attention in a >pairs event, where the artificial adjusted score to give depends on it. > In the UK we try to address this problem to some extent. A sitout pair gets their score for the whole event, not for the session. It does not, but probably should, extend to Art Ass scores too. -- 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 Oct 20 03:01:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9JH0s602733 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 03:00:54 +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-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 e9JH0bt02715 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 03:00:38 +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 13mJ3P-000Px8-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 18:00:32 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:38:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Attitude was 'Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke' References: <200010181620.JAA02998@mailhub.irvine.com> <0abb01c03998$ed07d6a0$c21f173f@uymfdlvk> In-Reply-To: <0abb01c03998$ed07d6a0$c21f173f@uymfdlvk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <0abb01c03998$ed07d6a0$c21f173f@uymfdlvk>, Chris Pisarra writes > >Mad Dog Probst wrote > >> I have long held the belief that a player revoking "could have >> known that his action might damage the opponents". This view does not >> accord with established EBU practice, and I have stopped using it in >> club games I direct, as well as when directing for the EBU. > > > Revoking with knowledge that it might damage ones opponents >would only work if the revoke was then concealed. That would indeed be a >serious offense, essentially intentional, planned cheating. I hardly think >that behavior explains more than 0.0000000003% of the revokes that occur. > > The remainder are inadvertent. I have revoked far too many times in >my life, and never once been aware that my action might damage the >opponents, because if I **had** been so aware, I wouldn't have revoked in >the first place. > > Chris > When you open out of turn are you aware? When you hesitate (thinking of what to have for dinner) are you aware? When you lead from the wrong hand are you aware? In all of these cases I might adjust I don't subscribe to your view I'm afraid >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Oct 20 03:01:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9JH0rI02732 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 03:00:53 +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 e9JH0bt02716 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 03:00:38 +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 13mJ3P-000PxA-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 18:00:32 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 17:17:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling at the Young Chelsea References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6E2@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6E2@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 In article <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6E2@fdwag002s.fd.agro.n l>, Kooijman, A. writes >Normally I am not too eager to give rulings in these situations. It is >nothing but exposing ignorance in such a group. >But you made some statements I don't understand. Why do you say it doesn't >matter whether 3C is forcing? We agree that north created an irregularity >and should be penalized for that. But if what he said is true how can west >be damaged? >And what do you mean with: the AC will accept that west might be stopped >from bidding 3D? There was an AC giving this statement? I am almost sure >that the real south hand was 82 Q853 QJ94 KT9 and that you want us to give >the wrong answer! The hand is as posted. > Or is the most important information that this happened at >the Young Chelsea? Only that the TD (not me) and AC will be competent. > >By the way a nice and obvious example of not allowing south to change his >pass after the remark and before west's bid. Yes, 25B still exists. I don't think this is a 25B case. It was West's turn to call and he was thinking and waving his hand around near the box, giving an impression he was passing (but not having passed) when the remark was made. Extra complications arise in that once West has passed South should probably correct his partner's comment. I don't want to address that point here. > As it happens I was South and had absolutely *no* intention of bidding whether my wife thought 3C was forcing or not. She's limited to about 15 points by failure to bid 3C immediately and we had had a minor system mix-up earlier in the auction where she thought I had a 3rd spade and about 8-9 points in which case 3C would be forcing to 3S, and to be taken as a long suit game try. (We play constructive raises playing 5cM, but destructive raises playing precision, and go via 1NT (forcing) to show the other sort, and I hadn't pointed out we were playing it this way round, as sometimes we play precision and sometimes 5cM, weak NT). I'd shown a destructive raise, as far as I was concerned. (No fit, soft wasted values) The AC (containing 2 UK internationals) will and did accept West's contention that he might have been stopped from bidding 3D by the remark, and everyone in the room knows he is capable of bidding it. Anyway, what does the AC do under EBU regulation? >ton > > >> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- >> Van: John (MadDog) Probst [mailto:john@probst.demon.co.uk] >> Verzonden: donderdag 19 oktober 2000 1:23 >> Aan: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au >> Onderwerp: [BLML] Ruling at the Young Chelsea >> >> >> Bd 25 KJT63 >> Dl N 4 >> V EW K3 >> AQ543 >> A95 Q74 >> A97 QJT6 >> AT82 J7654 >> J86 7 >> 82 W N E S >> K8532 1S P 1Na >> Q9 P 2Ca P 2S >> KT92 P 3C P P >> >> At this point West (an imaginative player) stops to think, >> and North thinking he has passed says "I'm sure that's >> forcing to 3S". West now passes and 3C just makes when declarer >> gets the spades wrong. (I don't think 3C is forcing but that's >> not relevant). >> >> West calls the TD and suggests he might have bid 3D. (He really >> might do too). The TD is called and rules 4D=. NS appeal >> based on the unlikeliness of a 3D call. >> >> As an AC, English jurisprudence, what adjustment if any do >> you make to the TD's ruling. Believe me, the West player >> may well bid 3D, and the AC will accept this and will accept >> that West may have been stopped from bidding by the remark. -- John (MadDog) Probst|In Mitchell Movements|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road |Arrow switch 1 in 8 |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | All else is wrong |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |Trust me on this one!|Site www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 20 03:01:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9JH0t802734 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 03:00:55 +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-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 e9JH0dt02718 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 03:00:40 +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 13mJ3S-000Px7-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 18:00:34 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 17:32:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6E3@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <000701c039c5$fcc84de0$ef42073e@D457300> In-Reply-To: <000701c039c5$fcc84de0$ef42073e@D457300> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <000701c039c5$fcc84de0$ef42073e@D457300>, David Burn writes snip > >Now, if you are bound by a set of regulations, I do not think this >empowers you to change them just because you don't like them. There is a >regulation, by which the Welsh Bridge Union has agreed to be bound, >which says that in default of any specific CoC, a session ends when >there is a scoring break and a 30-minute interval. This event was run, I >believe, by the East Wales region, which is a subordinate body of the >WBU and is, as far as I know, bound by the regulations that the WBU has >adopted. The Director acts as the official representative of the SO, for >Law 81A says so - but I do not think that this gives him the power to >amend or over-ride regulations adopted by that SO simply because he does >not think they ought to apply. Of course, I may be wrong about this - it >is a question for other heads than mine. If one accepts that the definition of one-session event is used to give players some idea as to the duration of the event, and this is not binding on the TD ... If one accepts that the lack of a specific CoC does not stop the TD from promulgating one for the purpose of the event (81C5) ... If one accepts that the TD *could* run the event so that a scoring break can take place at the point where the 5th player wishes to join the event ... If one accepts that he may choose not to do this ... If one accepts that the CoC places a considerable strain on the TD to find a way to permit the 5th player to play ... If one accepts that one *could* stretch Law4 to permit a substitution ... then I think we should let player 5 play. However I think I've changed sides. Does that allow me to punch DWS on the nose? :)) <--- DWS please note the smiley. > >[TK] >> In my Wales everybody would have agreed with that and nr. 5 would have >been grateful. snip > >David Burn >London, England -- 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 Oct 20 03:16:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9JHG3w02788 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 03:16:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9JHFxt02784 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 03:15:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id oa408396 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 03:11:00 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-006-p-217-186.tmns.net.au ([203.54.217.186]) by mail7.bigpond.com (Claudes-Radiant-MailRouter V2.9c 15/9582524); 20 Oct 2000 03:10:59 Message-ID: <000c01c039f7$e26d67a0$bad936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 04:10:37 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Proleggy Thing --------------------- David Burn seems to have a point. I think I have a point. Neither point is clearly dominantly right. At some future stage, one of us may abandon this discussion. In the meantime I will continue to be disagreeable (no offence intended). David Burn wrote: >Peter wrote, some time ago: > >> Sounds to me like Player 5 wanted to start play in the middle >> of a session, so we move on to the part of Law 4 which is in >> brackets. If there is no SO definition of "substitute" in Anne's >> region then I suppose a slightly warped interpretation of that >> word by the TD is possible, allowing the bracketed part of >> Law 4 to take effect. I don't like it much though. > >But it appears to have grown on him, for he later writes: > >> Law 4 specificallly uses the word "substitution" rather then >> the word "substitute". This seems to make DWS's logic >> impeccable IMO. In the absence of definition of the word >> "substitution", a logical Director should interpret the word >> as [it is defined in a dictionary]. > >Now, one is entitled to disagree with oneself, and >inflexibility of mind is a fearsome thing. Well done. I slipped up earlier in the thread, misreading substitution as substitute when I first replied to this thread. I wonder if anyone else did too. I presume that I am now a fully qualified member of BLML who has met all the necessary initiation rituals. >... it were the correct reading, I think the Law would have >been written: > >In pair or team events, the contestants enter as pairs or >teams. Except where authorised by the Director, contestants >retain the same partnerships throughout a session. Your wording seems to change the meaning of the Law in a different way. The 1997 wording makes no provision for the Director or SO to authorise a team of NS plus EW switching mid-session to NE plus SW. Your wording seems to increase the Director's power by specifically authorising him to allow that. So I don't think that your wording would ever have been used. >But as the Law stands, I believe that the implication >of the parenthesis is this: >In pair or team events, the contestants enter as pairs or >teams and retain the same partnerships throughout a >session (except in the case of substitutions that may be >authorised by the Director in accordance with the >remainder of these Laws). The last five words of your paragraph seem a bit weird to me. Here in NSW, the Director authorises substitutes (or substitutions if you prefer, I do seem to have difficulty telling one from another) in accordance with the Tournament Regulations rather than, as you suggest, in accordance with the Laws. I think this was part of DWS's original point (perhaps not stated explicitly, but possibly implied): that the Director should be looking at the T Regs (or CoC) more so than the Laws when forced to make decisions about the structure of the tournament. >Suppose that the CoC were to say: during this event, >hearts will outrank spades. Would the TD be compelled >to rule that a 1S overcall of 1H was an insufficient bid? An interesting question. If, as at the annual Christmas Fun Duplicate, everyone at every table was following the CoC and overcalling 2S over 1H like good little munchkins, then obviously 1S is insufficient (L80E rather than L80F being the applicable Law). But if everyone was treating it as a misprint in the CoC, then obviously 1S is not insufficient. >The CoC did not bother to stipulate whether or not this >was a one-session event nor did they (or the T regs) stipulate what "substitution" meant. >in the EBU White Book .... > >79.12.2. Multiple Teams, Pairs and Individual competitions. >In all these competitions a session ends when the programme >provides an interval of at least 30mins before the resumption >of play and a score to that stage is calculated. The score is >available when posted for inspection by the players. Since Law 8C defines the "end of session" as: [at the end of the last round of the session] "for each table when play of all boards scheduled at that table has been completed, and when all scores have been entered on the proper scoring forms without objection", is it OK for the SO to be defining the same term? Is this more like L80F than L80E? Is it OK? Which definition should prevail? The one in the Laws or the EBU one? Or have I misuinderstood? >so that this really was a one-session event Was it? The definition of "round' in the Laws is of course highly relevant to the discussion due to Law 8C (am I going mad? wasn't this originally a very simple question by Anne?). Of course that definition confirms David Burn's logic. No problem here. >It may be of interest that the fifth team member, after >considering the matter, does not now think he ought >to have been allowed to play! If you really want to confuse him, put him in touch with me! >The facts appear to me to be these: >the event consisted of one session; yes >the replacement of a player by a team-mate may occur >in Law only after a session has ended and before the >next session begins; subject to one proviso (which follows) >there is a reference in Law 4 to "substitutions authorised >by the Director", but this is not relevant; disagree; those last five words of yours (earlier, above) were an extremely arguable interpretation IMO. >My argument is not, as far as I can see, as weak as all >that Fair enough. I'd rate your argument 5/10 and mine 5/10. >not to mention the support of the substitute in question Now you're doing it too. Perhaps corresponding with me is bad for the concentration? He was a substitution, not a substitute; a Player can't be a substitute but can be a substitution. >If, as may very well be, my interpretation of the situation >is not correct, then it should be trivially possible to say why. Because the word "substitution" in Law 4 is not defined, its meaning should not be assumed, and especially should not be assumed to be a meaning which is at odds with the dictionary definition of the word. Trivial enough? Didn't I also write earlier in this thread something like (no offence intended to Shakespeare): "much ado about nothing" Peter Gill Sydney, NSW, 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 Oct 20 03:35:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9JHYpv02811 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 03:34:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9JHYjt02807 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 03:34:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.4.175]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20001019173440.GZNU13676.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 18:34:40 +0100 Message-ID: <004201c039f3$39617ba0$af04ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne.jones1" To: "BLML" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6E3@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 18:37:15 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: "'David Burn'" ; "BLML" Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 12:23 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Teams of Four. > > > John Probst writes: > > > > > The point I was trying to make was that, if the CoC permit a team to > > > consist of more than four members then, it is simply > > nonsense to stop > > a > > > player playing during a particular phase (in this case the > > qualifier) > > of > > > the competition. It is up to the TD to ensure that this player can > > > play, otherwise he is ignoring the CoC. The TD has Law 81 duties as > > well > > > as Law 4 obligations. > > > > Yes, but nowhere in Law 81 does it say that the TD is > > supposed to ensure > > that everyone who turns up will get a game regardless of the > > rest of the > > Laws. > > To reply on your level of debating: That is not what D.S. or J.P. are > saying. Do you really think that the TD is every team's captain? He is there > to ensure that the team gets the opportunity to have nr. 5 playing. That > nr.5 seems to agree with you is not very convincing. If he was from Wales he > might not know better, if I understand the situation well. > I think that perhaps you do not understand the situation well:-) In Wales we are quite able to read the Law book, and to study regulations. It is because of our ability to do this that this discussion is taking place. The CoC state that the entire competition consists of a one session qualifying round, and a Final which consists of 2 sessions. This was the qualifying round, and it was a one session event. Player 5 is a very eminent member of Welsh Bridge, has been the Chairman of the BBL Laws Commission and represents Wales in Europe. We are not inept as a nation, but like others feel that in order to afford a problem an adequate condideration, it is wise to consider the opinions of others. Thank you for your contribution. 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 Oct 20 06:06:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9JK4Ps02965 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 06:04:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9JK4It02961 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 06:04:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from Panther1204.eiu.edu (Panther1204.eiu.edu [139.67.12.189]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA00343 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 15:12:34 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001019150124.007b5240@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 15:01:24 -0500 To: "BLML" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. In-Reply-To: <006301c039b6$a6ca97e0$d2b801d5@D457300> References: <00e501c0383a$1f6d76a0$dfd636cb@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 11:23 AM 10/19/2000 +0100, David Burn wrote: >Now, one is entitled to disagree with oneself, and inflexibility of mind >is a fearsome thing. Having gone to great lengths to indicate that I >would accept a judgement that the parenthesis in Law 4 might allow the >replacement of a player by a team-mate part way through a session, I now >respectfully disagree with myself. These are the words in question: > >In pair or team events, the contestants enter as pairs or teams and >retain the same partnerships throughout a session (except in the case of >substitutions authorised by the Director). > >It has been held that these words in themselves permit the authorising >of substitutions by the Director, and such a reading is linguistically >possible. I do not think, however, that it is the correct reading (and I do not see that it can possibly be denied that the reading is linguistically possible. >neither, as I have said, does the EBU's Chief Tournament Director). If >it were the correct reading, I think the Law would have been written: > >In pair or team events, the contestants enter as pairs or teams. Except >where authorised by the Director, contestants retain the same >partnerships throughout a session. > >This would explicitly give to the Director the power that DWS and John >Probst believe that he has anyway. But as the Law stands, I believe that I disagree. This seems to me to be almost as vague as the actual text. If you want it explicit, you need a sentence that clarifies _under what circumstances_ the Director can authorize a substitute. >the implication of the parenthesis is this: > >In pair or team events, the contestants enter as pairs or teams and >retain the same partnerships throughout a session (except in the case of >substitutions that may be authorised by the Director in accordance with >the remainder of these Laws). Yes, that's about how the Law should have been written to make it mean what you take it to mean. But it wasn't. It wasn't written the way it should have been to mean what DWS thinks it means, and it wasn't written the way it should have been to mean what you think it means. What we are left with is simply this: we have a clearly ambiguous law. It might be that the law was intended to mean what you [and others] think it was intended to mean. Perhaps it was intended to mean what DWS wants it to mean. I don't know. I wasn't there. I am convinced that it is _not_ obvious either way. So what do we do. Frankly, in this case we're in a deeper mess than usual, since we _also_ have problems with the CoC. As TD, I rule that it makes no sense to allow teams of more than 4 unless the players can play, so in the absence of an obviously correct legal answer I let #5 play. >To put this another way, Law 4 does not empower the Director to >authorise any kind of substitution. It refers only to substitutions that >the Director is elsewhere empowered to make, and says that the >provisions of Law 4 do not apply when such substitutions have been made. Maybe it was supposed to. It doesn't explicitly, and I don't see any contextual or principled reason why it must mean that. >John Probst writes: > >> The point I was trying to make was that, if the CoC permit a team to >> consist of more than four members then, it is simply nonsense to stop >a >> player playing during a particular phase (in this case the qualifier) >of >> the competition. It is up to the TD to ensure that this player can >> play, otherwise he is ignoring the CoC. The TD has Law 81 duties as >well >> as Law 4 obligations. > >Yes, but nowhere in Law 81 does it say that the TD is supposed to ensure >that everyone who turns up will get a game regardless of the rest of the >Laws. If the CoC permit a team to consist of more than four players, but >also stipulate that this is a one-session event (so that changes of >line-up are not possible), then the CoC are ridiculous. But this does But the CoC is only ridiculous _if the law means what you think it means_. It there is a reasonable reading of the laws that makes the CoC non-ridiculous, I would prefer it. >not mean that the Laws may be broken in order to render the CoC >non-ridiculous. Suppose that the CoC were to say: during this event, >hearts will outrank spades. Would the TD be compelled to rule that a 1S >overcall of 1H was an insufficient bid? No, because here the Law is clear. But I do think the TD can reasonably ask that the CoC be changed if he finds a legal contradiction. >No, otherwise I would do it. I have nowhere said that DWS is lacking >either in honesty or in integrity. I have said, and continue to say, >that his view of this matter is wrong, and that his implication that the >Laws are the servant of the Director is dangerous, for the converse is >actually true. My argument is not, as far as I can see, as weak as all >that - it is, in effect, the same argument as Grattan's and has the >support of Max Bavin (not to mention the support of the substitute in >question, which I suppose ought to count for something). If, as may very >well be, my interpretation of the situation is not correct, then it >should be trivially possible to say why. I do not think that legal questions can be solved by saying "The written law is ambiguous, but I think that if it had been intended to mean 'x' they might have written the law differently, so I will assume the law must mean 'non-x'. Therefore, any TD who rules as if the law meant 'x' is abusing his power and putting himself above the law." All you have shown, I think, is that the law might have been intended to mean something other than what DWS inteprets it to mean. I certainly agree that you are correct about that. But I agree with DWS that when the laws, regulations, CoC's, etc. are ambiguous or contradictory, the TD must step in to make decisions that will be equitable and will allow the game to proceed smoothly. Neither DWS nor I have suggested that the TD is above the Law, but I do not think that the TD's powers are constrained by _possible_ readings of ambiguous laws, especially when those meanings produce disruptive results. >David Burn >London, England Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 20 07:40:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9JLdAL03057 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 07:39:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9JLd3t03053 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 07:39:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcaugdi.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.65.178]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA25341 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 17:39:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <004501c03a14$eeb88180$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "BLML" References: <200010181620.JAA02998@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Attitude was 'Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke' Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 17:38:33 -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: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 8:34 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] TD Attitude was 'Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke' > > I've not posted to this thread because I haven't yet made up my mind. > However, I have long held the belief that a player revoking "could have > known that his action might damage the opponents". This view does not > accord with established EBU practice, and I have stopped using it in > club games I direct, as well as when directing for the EBU. > > I'd be interested in giving this view another outing on blml. It > certainly resolves the problem in this case. > > cheers john > -- Is the revoker aware of L64C? If so, he will also be aware that the revoke cannot damage the opponents (unless they claim, and in that case damage will clearly depend on which TD takes the call...) On a more serious note, there's absolutely no need to invoke 72B1, which gives the TD the authority to give an assigned adjusted score, when that authority is already provided by 64C (if the opponents have been damaged and the penalty tricks do not provide redress). Since both paths lead to the same end, might as well take the most direct course. 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 Oct 20 16:47:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9K6kfL03946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 16:46:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9K6kZt03942 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 16:46:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.193] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13mVwk-000EU2-00; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 07:46:31 +0100 Message-ID: <001101c03a61$b638fa40$c15408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'John Probst'" , References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6E2@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling at the Young Chelsea Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 07:42:03 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence" - Psalm 91. =xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx= ----- Original Message ----- From: Kooijman, A. To: 'John Probst' ; Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 8:47 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] Ruling at the Young Chelsea > We agree that north created an irregularity > and should be penalized for that. But if what > he said is true how can west be damaged? > +=+ Hmmm....... could we perhaps think that if the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity Law 72B1 might apply? ~ 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 Oct 20 17:20:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9K7Jv504031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 17:19:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9K7Jot04027 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 17:19:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA20204 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 09:19:46 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Oct 20 09:22:04 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 <01JVJZSI3GGE000ZDW@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 09:19:08 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 09:15:48 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 09:19:06 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Ruling at the Young Chelsea To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , "Kooijman, A." , "'John Probst'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6E8@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 > > > > We agree that north created an irregularity > > and should be penalized for that. But if what > > he said is true how can west be damaged? > > > +=+ Hmmm....... could we perhaps think that > if the offending side gained an advantage > through the irregularity Law 72B1 might > apply? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > We could consider that, but I do not think that we should apply 72B1. Put a screen at the table, now north explains the bidding situation to west, including the fact that 3C is forcing (which he can proof). West passes and it appears that west can make 10 tricks in diamonds and north has this actual holding. Reason to adjust the score? I do not see any difference with the actual case. Furthermore, but that is only relevant if north gave wrong information, which probably is the case, I personally do not believe that 3D is a likely choice. But I tried to explain before that I try to avoid those statements here. 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 Oct 20 17:54:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9K7s6W04065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 17:54:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9K7rxt04061 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 17:54:00 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id IAA09027 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 08:53:51 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 08:53 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Obligation to double after partners psychic bid? 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: <3.0.6.32.20001017150618.008c0780@pop.ulb.ac.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > AG : yes, to be sure, but this is not the standard for 'fielding > psyche' actions : the question is rather 'is 1NT a logical > alternative to pass ?', to which the answer is 'yes' > AFAIAC-BTAICBW, unless E/W's system specifically states so (and if > it does, this could be the sign that they psyche a little bit too > often). The UI laws have nothing to do with it. The question is "is there an illegal partnership agreement?". There are many facets to this question around how psychic tendencies should be/were disclosed etc. But there is also, I believe, a question similar to the one you pose for establishing prima facie evidence of an agreement namely "Did the partner take an unusual action which catered to the possibility of a psychic bid?". Now to me 2D/1N and Pass all seem like normal actions - probably around 1/3 each. All are LAs (were that relevant) but none are "unusual". 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 Oct 20 18:04:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9K84au04103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 18:04:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9K84Tt04099 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 18:04:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id KAA08694 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 10:04:26 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Oct 20 10:06:46 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 <01JVK1CH5WE2000ZFZ@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 10:03:29 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 10:00:09 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 10:03:27 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Teams of Four. To: "'anne.jones1'" , BLML Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6EA@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 ton said to David B.: That > > nr.5 seems to agree with you is not very convincing. If he > was from Wales he might not know better, if I understand the situation well. > > anne jones replied: > I think that perhaps you do not understand the situation > well:-) In Wales we are quite able to read the Law book, and to study > regulations. It is because of our ability to do this that this discussion is taking > place. The CoC state that the entire competition consists of a one session > qualifying round, and a Final which consists of 2 sessions. This was the > qualifying round, and it was a one session event. >> Player 5 is a very eminent member of Welsh Bridge, has been the > Chairman of the BBL Laws Commission and represents Wales in Europe. > We are not inept as a nation, but like others feel that in > order to afford a problem an adequate condideration, it is wise to consider the > opinions of others. > Thank you for your contribution. > Anne Goodness, offended a whole nation this time. I thought to hear a lighthearted undertone of teasing as is not uncommon between neighbour countries. And thought to be able to join that atmosphere, which is a stupid mistake of course. Sorry. About the case once more. L 4 is not my problem, I would not authorize a substitution under L4. Now we have cofc saying that a team is allowed to play with 6 members at one hand and saying that a team is not allowed to play with 6 players at the oher hand. This is not a typical Wales problem, it happens in other matters all the time. If we can't write clear laws who can expect to produce clear CofC. And I can assure that the effort put in the laws in this respect normally is much bigger than that put in the CofC. So we now have discovered a problem which has to be solved by the TD. My solution then is to let player 5 play. 'No sir, I am sorry but I can't allow you to play today'. 'But you allowed 6 players in a team!' 'Yes sir, sorry sir, they might have made a mistake, but I really can't allow you to play'. 'So I got up at five this morning, drove all up from 'name an unknown place', waited here for three hours and now you tell me that I can't play'?. 'Well yes sir, you see, where is it, ahh here, definition of a session: "the continuation of rounds when there is no break of at least half an hour". And you remember that I succeeded in getting the third round running after 25 minutes. Good performance, don't you think'? To be clear, this all happened in my country so I had to translate this conversation. We love and need our members, so I advised the S.O. of this tournament to take another CTD in next years event, one not capable of restarting in 25 minutes, and to send me the draft of the CofC. 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 Oct 20 18:15:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9K8F4104145 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 18:15:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9K8Eut04141 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 18:14:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id KAA17137 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 10:14:53 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Oct 20 10:17:06 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 <01JVK1PFGR4A000ZGO@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 10:13:56 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 10:10:35 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 10:13:54 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Teams of Four. To: "'David Burn'" , BLML Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6EB@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 gentlemen, may I ask you to continue this kind of conversation, leaving out hearts and spades. May be it helps even me to write more polite anwers eventually. ton > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: David Burn [mailto:dburn@btinternet.com] > Verzonden: donderdag 19 oktober 2000 3:55 > Aan: BLML > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. > > > Peter wrote: > > > David Burn wrote: > > >However, the Laws refer to a specific > > >instance where a player may be substituted (Law 16A2, > > >if memory serves, but I do not have the book with me). > > > Law 16B2 > > Close enough, as my American wife often and mysteriously says, for > government work. > > > but it refers to the noun "substitute" (not the verb). > > This seems to add weight to my argument that the word > > "substitution" in Law 4 does not mean "substitute", making > > the DWS/PG position seem to become an even more > > accurate summation of what a Director can legally do. > > Peter, I have tried to make it clear in several ways that if > it were to > be found that a replacement of the kind made in the actual event was a > "substitution" that could be sanctioned by the Director under Law 4, I > personally would accept that finding. For myself, I agree > with you (as I > have said) that the words themselves admit of that interpretation. But > it is not a universally accepted interpretation, and in the > context of a > bridge tournament it has one or two obvious flaws; hence, I have tried > to pursue the argument on the basis that it is not a valid > interpretation. > > Your argument is, insofar as I have understood it, that the > question of > a "session" does not arise, for the Director could authorise the > subsitution in any case. I do not make now, nor have I ever made, a > comment as to what I personally think of that argument. I say merely > that if that argument were to find favour, then the question of what > constitues a "session" would become irrelevant, for the "substitution" > would in all cases be permissible. To put this another way: you are > addressing yourself to the question of whether the > parenthesis in Law 4 > is sufficient to allow the replacement that actually happened; I am > addressing myself to the question of whether, supposing that the > parenthesis did not allow the replacement, it could have been > allowed by > other means. You and I have no quarrel with one another, since we are > addressing different questions. We both, it appears to me, think that > the replacement ought to have been allowed in "human" terms. > > > And I added that in this case, an analysis of the > > relevant Law (#4), if its words are assumed to be > > deliberately rather than carelessly chosen ["inferiorly" > > or irrationally if you prefer :) ], IMO backs up his ruling. > > Since you insist: law 4 refers to "substitutions authorised by the > Director". This does not of itself imply that the Director > may authorise > any kind of substitution; rather that when the Director is > permitted to > authorise a particular kind of substitution, the provisions of Law 4 > cease to apply to a substitution (or indeed a "substitute", which is a > noun as well as a verb) so authorised. > > > I repeat my position that the use of different words in > > Laws 4 and 16B2 seems to suggest that the Laws are > > not intended to stuff up the Director in Anne's case. > > This is simply the "cult of the Director" to which I have already > referred. Whether or not the Laws "stuff up" the Director, or > the player > who claims, or the player who revokes, is a matter of surpassing > indifference. What the Laws are "intended to" say is wholly > and utterly > irrelevant; the only thing that matters is what the Laws do > in fact say. > > > This > > is the gist of what DWS wrote, isn't it: that in this particular > > case the Laws do not interfere in the manner in which > > people in this thread have been claiming they do. > > Yes, of course it is. It is usually the gist of what DWS says that in > any particular case, the Laws do not interfere with his > opinion of what > they ought to mean. But I will be accused of personal animosity if I > make remarks like that. > > > I still agree with DWS. > > So do I, most of the time, though he does not believe it. On this > occasion, however... > > > >I can only say that having > > >discussed the situation with someone in a position of > > >some authority (in this country at least) > > > > David Burn previously wrote: > > >>>Aware of this difficulty, Max Bavin has for some time > > >>>taken considerable care that a "session" in terms of > > >>>Law 4 is clearly defined in the Conditions of Contest > > >>>for EBU events. Nothing in this incident would surprise > > >>>him or the rest of the EBU in the least. > > Speaking to Max today, he told me that he had seven different > definitions of a "session". One related to correction periods, one > related to changes of lineup, one related to TDs' salaries, > one related > to the arrangements he made with tournament venues, and the > other three > were in case some smartass asked him what a session was. > > > Why not then define "substitution" too, so that we know > > what's going on? > > Know what's going on? Peter, if we did that, this invaluable list and > most of the Universe as we know it would simply cease to exist. > > > Even my little backwater has defined > > 'substitution', despite the lack of full-time bridge employees > > down under making all bridge admin round these parts very > > difficult. "Substitution" happens to be defined in the Regulations > > of my local SO (the NSWBA, who are part of the ABF). Both the > > NSWBA and the ABF are not always inclined to dot every i in > > their Regulations, by the way. > > As I believe they say where you live, good on yer, mate. I regret that > we didn't actually meet in Maastricht, though I suppose that > we both had > more pressing things to do. Should the occasion arise again, I promise > not to punch you on the nose for agreeing with DWS, as long as you > promise not to punch me on the nose for disagreeing with him. > > > I didn't mean to offend Mr Bavin by my previous paragraph > > and apologise if I stepped over the line. Nobody's perfect. > > Otherwise we'd all be able to beat those Italian bridge > > players. > > Perfect? We're not even adequate. > > 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 Oct 20 20:16:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9KAFfU04372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:15:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9KAFVt04364 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:15:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-131.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.131]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA01589 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 12:15:26 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39EEECDE.C01031D8@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 14:45:18 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession not knowing of opponent's revoke References: <3.0.1.32.20001011215632.0121528c@pop.mindspring.com> <015d01c03397$05a74360$71b6f1c3@kooijman> <3.0.1.32.20001011215632.0121528c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001013163335.01218750@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001015133232.01226064@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001017204430.01223ef4@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001018180123.01225184@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: > > > Back to the original problem. Imagine that South plays the hand out rather > than conceding the last two tricks. If he playes a diamond, West wins the > last two tricks, and we therefore transfer only one trick, per L64. If > instead South leads a spade to trick 12, East wins the last two tricks, > including one with a card he could have played to the revoke trick, and so > South is awarded a two-trick revoke bonus. > > Now what differentiates these two situations, other than the size of the > revoke penalty? With no thought of a possible revoke, there is no bridge > reason at all for South to play one of these losing cards before the other. > The EW team have won two tricks in both cases, so the effect of the revoke > upon the total number of tricks won is the same, regardless of which > defender wins them. The original revoke is just as serious a crime in one > case as in the other. And yet the revoke Laws treat them differently. That > is the system we have, and it is exactly as I have described it: various > entirely equivalent actions earn different revoke penalties. > > And while I am arguing that declarer should in some instances receive a > smaller revoke bonus after a concession than he might otherwise, you are > arguing that declarer should in fact receive a larger bonus after a > concession than he might otherwise, relying upon a mythical legal principle > in defense of your position. > > Mike Dennis > -- > I understand the problem well, Mike. We don't know whether to give one penalty trick or two. But as I understood your position, Mike (and I hope I am wrong), your solution would be to NOT award any penalty tricks to declarer when he concedes. That clearly is a mistake. Now it is my position that the ruling should be 2 penalty tricks, because we rule against revoker. I can live with a ruling of 1.5 penalty tricks, although that seems making it a little problematic. I could even live with a ruling of 1 penalty trick, although I don't believe any regulation can be written to cover this. How do you say that declarer should get the least of all possible redresses ? What I cannot live with is a ruling where no penalty tricks at all are awarded. That is simply not within the words of the Laws, and certainly not in the spirit. -- 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 Oct 20 20:16:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9KAFfg04373 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:15:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9KAFXt04365 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:15:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-131.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.131]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA01607 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 12:15:29 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39EEF484.C845E169@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 15:17:56 +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] Teams of Four. References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6E3@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Kooijman, A." wrote: > > > Something else: the definition of session needs much more attention in a > pairs event, where the artificial adjusted score to give depends on it. > Which is a silly reason for it actually. A pair are having a 65% session, a 55% one and another of 45%. Why should it matter whether they have an Av+ board in the first session, the second one or the third ? I agree that there should be a rule like this, but only for overall-scores. I also realize that this is hard work on the computer. -- 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 Oct 20 20:23:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9KAMsI04392 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:22:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mgw-x2.nokia.com (mgw-x2.nokia.com [131.228.20.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9KAMlt04388 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:22:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from esebh01nok.ntc.nokia.com (esebh01nok.ntc.nokia.com [131.228.118.150]) by mgw-x2.nokia.com (8.10.2/8.10.2/Nokia) with ESMTP id e9KAMJP12330; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 13:22:20 +0300 (EET DST) Received: by esebh01nok with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 12:22:05 +0300 Message-ID: From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com To: cfgcs@eiu.edu, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Teams of Four. Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 12:21:40 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id e9KAMpt04389 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DB wrote: +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ In pair or team events, the contestants enter as pairs or teams. Except where authorized by the Director, contestants retain the same partnerships throughout a session. +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ > > > >This would explicitly give to the Director the power that > DWS and John > >Probst believe that he has anyway. But as the Law stands, I > believe that Grant Sterling responded: > > I disagree. This seems to me to be almost as vague as > the actual > text. If you want it explicit, you need a sentence that > clarifies _under > what circumstances_ the Director can authorize a substitute. This is a misunderstanding. DB never said that he thinks that this is how L4 should look like so there is no point in "disagreeing". He just wrote what the wording of L4 would be if it were meant to let the TD authorize any change under any circumstances (including, say, substitution midway through the board) and for any reason (e.g. because the n°5 is a good looking, long legged, 17-year old female player). Under the wording I quoted above the Director would indeed have the power to allow _any_ line-up changes under _any_ circumstances. It doesn't mean that DB thinks that L4 _should_ say that. The essence of the disagreement between DB and DWS is that the DWS thinks that the _current_ wording of L4 already gives the TD this power. To summarize: DWS: L4 gives the TD the power to authorize any change of partnerships throughout one session DB : No, 'cos it were meant to it would read (+-...-+) 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 Oct 20 22:11:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9KCBGx04622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 22:11:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9KCB9t04618 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 22:11:10 +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 e9KCB5j22684 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 08:11:05 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20001020080806.00ab48c0@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, 20 Oct 2000 08:09:30 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Fwd: RE: [BLML] Teams of Four. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A miskeying resulting in my replying to Konrad rather than the whole list. Message follows. Apololgies to Konrad for the double post. /eric >Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 07:48:40 -0400 >To: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com >From: Eric Landau >Subject: RE: [BLML] Teams of Four. > >At 07:09 AM 10/18/00, Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski wrote: > >> I don't think this is a good one. A Swiss team tournament >>consisting of, say, eight 4 deal matches would, by your definition, >>consist of eight sessions. > >That's how the ACBL defines it: teams are free to change their lineups >at will between matches of a Swiss team event. It works very well; >I've never heard of any objection to this policy. > >> A barometer MP tournament played in Cracow every Wednesday >>(cards preduplicated, all pairs in the field play the same 3 boards >>during >>every round, scores are known after every round) would therefore >>consist of 9 sessions! > >In theory, but since a pair is only two players, it doesn't make any >practical difference. > >> Not that I disagree with having a default definition of a session. >>I just think it can't be that simple; I think it should consist >>of a couple sub-definitions for every usual type of contest (regular MP, >>barometer, Swiss teams etc.). > >I believe the ACBL's position is that a session ends when scores are >computed and posted. I'm not aware of any problems raised by this. 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 Oct 20 22:37:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9KCbdg04715 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 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 ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9KCbTt04710 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 22:37:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from Aspire.eiu.edu (eiuts51.eiu.edu [139.67.16.51]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id HAA11424 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 07:45:53 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001020074010.007bdc90@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 07:40:10 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: RE: [BLML] Teams of Four. In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id e9KCbWt04711 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:21 PM 10/20/00 +0300, Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com wrote: >DB wrote: > >+---------------------------------------------------------------------+ >In pair or team events, the contestants enter as pairs or teams. Except >where authorized by the Director, contestants retain the same >partnerships throughout a session. >+---------------------------------------------------------------------+ > > >> > >> >This would explicitly give to the Director the power that >> DWS and John >> >Probst believe that he has anyway. But as the Law stands, I >> believe that > > >Grant Sterling responded: >> >> I disagree. This seems to me to be almost as vague as >> the actual >> text. If you want it explicit, you need a sentence that >> clarifies _under >> what circumstances_ the Director can authorize a substitute. > > > This is a misunderstanding. DB never said that he thinks >that this is how L4 should look like so there is no point in "disagreeing". I see that I was unclear. DB said, in effect, "if the lawmakers had intended the law to mean what DWS [et al--apologies to some distinguished others] think it means, they would have said this...." I disagree, because I think DB's formulation is _exactly as ambiguous as the original_. So the fact that the law doesn't read as above is no proof [nay, not even any _evidence_] that the law wasn't intended as DWS interprets it. I say that if L4 had been intended to allow the TD to authorize substitutions for any cause whatsoever, it would have said so. It doesn't. And if it had been intended to allow substitutions only when explicitly authorized by other laws, it would have said that. [DB provides a very nice statement of that version of the law later in the post I replied to.] It doesn't. Ergo, by this reasoning, the law must mean neither thing! But I reject this reasoning. We may wish the law were better worded, but to argue that it doesn't mean 'x' because it might have been worded better to say that is, IMHO, futile. >He just wrote what the wording of L4 would >be if it were meant to let the TD authorize any change under any >circumstances (including, say, substitution midway through >the board) and for any reason (e.g. because the n°5 is a good >looking, long legged, 17-year old female player). >Under the wording I quoted above the Director >would indeed have the power to allow _any_ line-up changes >under _any_ circumstances. I strongly disagree. The wording above is, IMHO, not a whit more explicit about why the TD can authorize changes than the orginal. > It doesn't mean that DB thinks that L4 _should_ say that. >The essence of the disagreement between >DB and DWS is that the DWS thinks that the _current_ wording >of L4 already gives the TD this power. > To summarize: > >DWS: L4 gives the TD the power to authorize any change of > partnerships throughout one session >DB : No, 'cos it were meant to it would read (+-...-+) And this reasoning I reject, even if I didn't think the example given was flawed. [Which I do.] > Konrad Ciborowski Thank you for pointing out the ambiguity in my own argument-- fortunately, I don't have to think that I originally meant something different just because I see now I could have said what I meant more clearly. :):):) Respectfully, Grant Sterling >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 20 22:47:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9KClMj04747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 22:47:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9KClFt04743 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 22:47:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.0.ap (guppy)) id OAA28716; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:45:18 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id OAA06293; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:46:58 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001020145730.008d3230@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:57:30 +0200 To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Grattan Endicott'" , "Kooijman, A." , "'John Probst'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] Ruling at the Young Chelsea In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6E8@fdwag002s.fd.agro .nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:19 20/10/00 +0200, Kooijman, A. wrote: > >> >> >> > We agree that north created an irregularity >> > and should be penalized for that. But if what >> > he said is true how can west be damaged? >> > >> +=+ Hmmm....... could we perhaps think that >> if the offending side gained an advantage >> through the irregularity Law 72B1 might >> apply? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> > >We could consider that, but I do not think that we should apply 72B1. >Put a screen at the table, now north explains the bidding situation to west, >including the fact that 3C is forcing (which he can proof). AG : there is one essential difference : North 'explained' without being asked, which is a violation of the standard procedure. Our (Belgian) jurisprudency is to apply law 72B1 whenever a player unduly volunteers an information that happens to be wrong (even if coherent with the system), because he could indeed 'have known' it could trouble the opponents. A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 21 00:11:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9KEBLA04903 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 00:11:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mgw-x3.nokia.com (mgw-x3.nokia.com [131.228.20.26]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9KEBEt04899 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 00:11:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from esebh01nok.ntc.nokia.com (esebh01nok.ntc.nokia.com [131.228.118.150]) by mgw-x3.nokia.com (8.10.2/8.10.2/Nokia) with ESMTP id e9KEB7B08610 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 17:11:07 +0300 (EET DST) Received: by esebh01nok with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 16:26:48 +0300 Message-ID: From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] [TO ADMIN] The "Reply" key Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 16:26:47 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: EXT Eric Landau [mailto:elandau@cais.com] > Sent: 20. October 2000 15:10 > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Fwd: RE: [BLML] Teams of Four. > > > A miskeying resulting in my replying to Konrad rather than the whole > list. Message follows. Apololgies to Konrad for the double > post. /eric This is something that happens to all BLMLers from time to time. The reason is that the "Reply" option on BLML puts the _sender's_ address in the "To" field. This is unfortunate. The natural behavior would be to put the "bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au" address in the to field. Now to reply to the list you have to choose "Reply to All" and then remove all the addresses but one from the "To" field. This could easily be fixed if the administrator changes the "Reply-To" option on the list server. I think such a change would be welcome. Anyone with me on this one? 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 Oct 21 00:23:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9KEND704928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 00:23:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9KEN7t04924 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 00:23:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis196.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.196]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.1999.06.13.00.20) with ESMTP id <0G2Q00H68FYCEI@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 16:23:03 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 16:23:00 +0200 From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: [BLML] [TO ADMIN] The "Reply" key In-reply-to: X-Sender: Richard.Bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de To: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <5.0.0.25.0.20001020162141.009f9590@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id e9KENAt04925 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 16:26 20.10.2000 +0300, Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: EXT Eric Landau [mailto:elandau@cais.com] > > Sent: 20. October 2000 15:10 > > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > > Subject: Fwd: RE: [BLML] Teams of Four. > > > > > > A miskeying resulting in my replying to Konrad rather than the whole > > list. Message follows. Apololgies to Konrad for the double > > post. /eric > > > This is something that happens to all BLMLers from time to time. >The reason is that the "Reply" option on BLML puts the _sender's_ >address in the "To" field. This is unfortunate. The natural behavior >would be to put the "bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au" address in the to >field. Now to reply to the list you have to choose "Reply to All" and >then remove all the addresses but one from the "To" field. > This could easily be fixed if the administrator changes the >"Reply-To" option on the list server. I think such a change would be >welcome. Anyone with me on this one? I´m with you, but I fear I´m the only one. At least last time I suggested it they threw virtual stones on me ... > Konrad Ciborowski >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 21 01:04:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9KF3sl05005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 01:03:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9KF3lt05001 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 01:03:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-216.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.216]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA05604 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 17:03:37 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39F02C41.75665321@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 13:28:01 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. References: <000c01c039f7$e26d67a0$bad936cb@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: > > > Didn't I also write earlier in this thread something like > (no offence intended to Shakespeare): > "much ado about nothing" > Well put. I propose we adopt this as the secondary motto of the bridge-laws mailing list. -- 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 Oct 21 01:28:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9KFRYE05065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 01:27:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9KFRRt05061 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 01:27:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis68.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.68]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.1999.06.13.00.20) with ESMTP id <0G2Q00E1AIXK85@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 17:27:23 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 17:27:14 +0200 From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. In-reply-to: <39F02C41.75665321@village.uunet.be> X-Sender: Richard.Bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws Message-id: <5.0.0.25.0.20001020172703.009fa480@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <000c01c039f7$e26d67a0$bad936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 13:28 20.10.2000 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Peter Gill wrote: > > > > > > Didn't I also write earlier in this thread something like > > (no offence intended to Shakespeare): > > "much ado about nothing" > > > >Well put. > >I propose we adopt this as the secondary motto of the >bridge-laws mailing list. why only secondary? >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 21 01:29:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9KFTJW05085 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 01:29:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (mta03-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.43]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9KFTDt05081 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 01:29:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.5.228]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20001020152908.NOFZ13676.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 16:29:08 +0100 Message-ID: <004f01c03aaa$e2237600$5a2dfc3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne.jones1" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] [TO ADMIN] The "Reply" key Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 16:31:56 +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 I'm with you. I am frequently embarrassed by having sent a personal reply by accident (how presumptuous of me) when I intend to reply to the list. Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 2:26 PM Subject: [BLML] [TO ADMIN] The "Reply" key > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: EXT Eric Landau [mailto:elandau@cais.com] > > Sent: 20. October 2000 15:10 > > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > > Subject: Fwd: RE: [BLML] Teams of Four. > > > > > > A miskeying resulting in my replying to Konrad rather than the whole > > list. Message follows. Apololgies to Konrad for the double > > post. /eric > > > This is something that happens to all BLMLers from time to time. > The reason is that the "Reply" option on BLML puts the _sender's_ > address in the "To" field. This is unfortunate. The natural behavior > would be to put the "bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au" address in the to > field. Now to reply to the list you have to choose "Reply to All" and > then remove all the addresses but one from the "To" field. > This could easily be fixed if the administrator changes the > "Reply-To" option on the list server. I think such a change would be > welcome. Anyone with me on this one? > > > 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 Sat Oct 21 01:30:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9KFTvG05097 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 01:29:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9KFTrt05093 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 01:29:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ua536972 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 01:26:37 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-012-p-227-53.tmns.net.au ([203.54.227.53]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-Industrial-MailRouter V2.9b 13/21419618); 21 Oct 2000 01:26:37 Message-ID: <01cf01c03ab2$6e4fff20$74d436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] [TO ADMIN] The "Reply" key Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 02:25:16 +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 Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > This is something that happens to all BLMLers from time >to time. The reason is that the "Reply" option on BLML puts >the _sender's_ address in the "To" field. This is unfortunate. >The natural behavior would be to put the >"bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au" address in the to field. Now >to reply to the list you have to choose "Reply to All" and >then remove all the addresses but one from the "To" field. > This could easily be fixed if the administrator changes the >"Reply-To" option on the list server. I think such a change >would be welcome. Anyone with me on this one? Me. If it can easily be done, it would be most helpful. 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 Oct 21 02:08:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9KG81905156 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 02:08:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9KG7tt05152 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 02:07:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from smui2.atl.mindspring.net (smui2.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.123]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA11343; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 12:07:51 -0400 (EDT) From: hirsch_d@mindspring.com Received: by smui2.atl.mindspring.net id MAA0000000132; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 12:07:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 12:07:50 -0400 To: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] [TO ADMIN] The Message-ID: X-Originating-IP: 131.158.186.130 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com wrote: > > This could easily be fixed if the administrator changes the >"Reply-To" option on the list server. I think such a change would be >welcome. Anyone with me on this one? > > Konrad Ciborowski I am all in favor of having the reply sent automatically to the list, rather than the original sender, and have said so several times in the past. I can think of two reasons beyond the simple mechanics: 1) If a reply has good substantive content, perhaps all of us would benefit from reading it. 2) If a reply contains misinformation, at least it is in public, where those who have greater knowledge of the laws than I can see it. If I make an error in public, it can be caught and corrected, while a private reply could propagate incorrect information with no one the wiser. 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 Oct 21 02:20:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9KGKNl05197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 02:20:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9KGKHt05192 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 02:20:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id MAA17691 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 12:20:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA06866 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 12:20:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 12:20:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200010201620.MAA06866@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] [TO ADMIN] The "Reply" key X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com > The natural behavior > would be to put the "bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au" address in the to > field. Think for a second what happens if some list member enables the "vacation" feature of his mail program. A message from the list gets a response "I am on vacation; back on (some date)." This response is sent to the entire list, including the person on vacation. That person's mailer sends a response to the new message. Etc. The same thing can happen if someone has an invalid email address. The "undeliverable mail" message could go to the entire list and start an endless chain. If there is a technical solution to this problem, it might be reasonable to change the default "Reply" address. Please remember, though, that there are a lot of mailers in use, not all of which conform to the relevant specifications. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 21 02:21:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9KGLMp05211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 02:21:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9KGLHt05207 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 02:21:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 09:18:43 -0700 Message-ID: <013d01c03ab1$2ae8dbe0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <000c01c039f7$e26d67a0$bad936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <39F02C41.75665321@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 09:16:53 -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: > Peter Gill wrote: > > > > > > Didn't I also write earlier in this thread something like > > (no offence intended to Shakespeare): > > "much ado about nothing" > > > > Well put. > > I propose we adopt this as the secondary motto of the > bridge-laws mailing list. > Amen to that. I shall now add filters to eliminate e-mails with "Teams of Four" and "Concession not knowing" in the subject line. It has happened many times that some TD whom I convinced to join BLML tells me they (sic) quit because of so many interminable discussions concerning unimportant subjects. 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 Oct 21 03:35:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9KHYkn05375 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 03:34:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9KHYet05370 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 03:34:41 +1000 (EST) Received: by esebh01nok with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:34:37 +0300 Message-ID: From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] [TO ADMIN] The "Reply" key Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:34:35 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: EXT Steve Willner [mailto:willner@cfa.harvard.edu] > Sent: 20. October 2000 19:20 > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: [BLML] [TO ADMIN] The "Reply" key > > > > From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com > > The natural behavior > > would be to put the "bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au" address in the to > > field. > > Think for a second what happens if some list member enables the > "vacation" feature of his mail program. A message from the > list gets a > response "I am on vacation; back on (some date)." This response is > sent to the entire list, including the person on vacation. That > person's mailer sends a response to the new message. Etc. > > The same thing can happen if someone has an invalid email > address. The > "undeliverable mail" message could go to the entire list and start an > endless chain. The list bridge@ml.free.fr has a reply-to option set to the whole list. I am subscribed to this list for two years and: 1. I have _never_ seen any of the disasters you mentioned happen. _Never, ever_. 2. Sending e-mail to the sender rather than to the list happens _constantly_ on BLML. 3. I frequently receive double e-mails on BLML; one sent personnnaly to me and the other one sent to the list. In this thread only I have received double e-mails from Richard Bley and David Hirsch. Sometimes I forget and send double e-mails myself. This happens _all the time_. So we have "never, ever" vs. "all the time". 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 Oct 21 04:01:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9KI1Zh05460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 04:01:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9KI1Rt05455; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 04:01:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis132.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.132]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.1999.06.13.00.20) with ESMTP id <0G2Q007J1Q28PO@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de>; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:01:23 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:01:20 +0200 From: Richard Bley Subject: RE: [BLML] [TO ADMIN] The "Reply" key In-reply-to: X-Sender: Richard.Bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, markus@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <5.0.0.25.0.20001020195305.009f6e00@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id e9KI1Vt05456 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > > From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com > > > The natural behavior > > > would be to put the "bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au" address in the to > > > field. > > > > Think for a second what happens if some list member enables the > > "vacation" feature of his mail program. A message from the > > list gets a > > response "I am on vacation; back on (some date)." This response is > > sent to the entire list, including the person on vacation. That > > person's mailer sends a response to the new message. Etc. > > > > The same thing can happen if someone has an invalid email > > address. The > > "undeliverable mail" message could go to the entire list and start an > > endless chain. > > >The list bridge@ml.free.fr has a reply-to option set to the whole list. >I am subscribed to this list for two years and: > >1. I have _never_ seen any of the disasters you mentioned happen. _Never, >ever_. >2. Sending e-mail to the sender rather than to the list happens _constantly_ > on BLML. >3. I frequently receive double e-mails on BLML; one sent personnnaly to me > and the other one sent to the list. In this thread only I have received > double e-mails from Richard Bley and David Hirsch. Sometimes I forget > and send double e-mails myself. This happens _all the time_. > >So we have "never, ever" vs. "all the time". I´m a member of a german mailing list ("doubl") as well. They are not THAT busy in writing E-Mails ("only" about 5 a day I guess). As far as I know they have a mailing program that is able to filter "ping-pong" mails automatically. At least I always respond by clicking at "reply" and it goes directly to the list (we had some problems the other way round, where public e-Mails (eg. tournament invitations etc.) where responded public instead of private) and there were never any problems. What it makes even more difficult is the facct, that I have two mailing lists: one with reply and one with reply-all. Big game with my concentration here. Oh I just recognized that I made the "reply" mistake another time. Just repaired. :-) Perhaps Marcus can ask at http://sites.inka.de/pedl/doubl/index.html how this works. It would be soooo great 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 Sat Oct 21 04:29:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9KIT9v05498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 04:29:09 +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 e9KIT2t05494 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 04:29:03 +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 OAA14159 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:32:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200010201832.OAA14159@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <39F02C41.75665321@village.uunet.be> References: <000c01c039f7$e26d67a0$bad936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <39F02C41.75665321@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:32:05 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 20 October 2000 at 13:28, Herman De Wael wrote: >Peter Gill wrote: >> >> Didn't I also write earlier in this thread something like >> (no offence intended to Shakespeare): >> "much ado about nothing" > >Well put. > >I propose we adopt this as the secondary motto of the >bridge-laws mailing list. The primary motto being "RingTFLB for fun and profit?" Insincerely Yours, 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 Oct 21 04:30:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9KIU2x05510 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 04:30:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9KITut05506 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 04:29:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4bp.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.17.121]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA00515; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:29:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00b301c03ac4$5c72c3c0$7911f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: , Cc: Subject: Re: [BLML] [TO ADMIN] The Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:34:17 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I beg to differ. There is no need to automatically reply to the list. You can click on reply if you want to speak privately to the author, or reply to all if you have something to say that may be of more general interest. (I assume most email programs have at least as much flexibility as Outlook Express...it's hard to believe that Microsoft has the best on the market) It ain't broke Markus...please don't "fix" it. Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: hirsch_d@mindspring.com To: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, October 20, 2000 12:27 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] [TO ADMIN] The >Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com wrote: >> > >> This could easily be fixed if the administrator changes the >>"Reply-To" option on the list server. I think such a change would be >>welcome. Anyone with me on this one? >> >> Konrad Ciborowski > >I am all in favor of having the reply sent automatically to the list, rather than the original sender, and have said so several times in the past. I can think of two reasons beyond the simple mechanics: > >1) If a reply has good substantive content, perhaps all of us would benefit from reading it. > >2) If a reply contains misinformation, at least it is in public, where those who have greater knowledge of the laws than I can see it. If I make an error in public, it can be caught and corrected, while a private reply could propagate incorrect information with no one the wiser. > >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 Oct 21 04:34:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9KIY7805530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 04:34:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9KIY1t05526 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 04:34:02 +1000 (EST) Received: by esebh01nok with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 21:33:58 +0300 Message-ID: From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] [TO ADMIN] The "Reply" key Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 21:33:57 +0300 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 > and the other one sent to the list. In this thread only I > have received > double e-mails from Richard Bley and David Hirsch. Ouch!!!! I meant Hirsch Davis, of course. Hope I menaged to send this before Hirsch sends his follow-up :) SORRY HIRSCH!!! 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 Oct 21 05:27:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9KJQhb05666 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 05:26:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from [208.1.218.2] ([208.1.218.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e9KJQWt05662 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 05:26:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from no.name.available by [208.1.218.2] via smtpd (for rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) with SMTP; 20 Oct 2000 19:34:02 UT Received: from ehc.edu (JKUCHEN [172.16.227.223]) by ehcmail.ehc.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id S7XFJNSF; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:22:46 -0400 Message-ID: <39F09C7A.DA9A080C@ehc.edu> Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:26:50 -0400 From: John Kuchenbrod X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] [TO ADMIN] The References: <00b301c03ac4$5c72c3c0$7911f7a5@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I concur with Craig. I am on a different mailing list, quite active with seventy users. It has the reply-to field set by the list. In the majority of times that private replies are requested, some replies get posted to the entire list. It has led to some embarassment; people have announced things to everyone (e.g. future job plans) that they'd rather not have in public streams. Personally I have been burned by this. I asked for private replies. I got a reply from a good friend. I hit the reply button to reply to my friend. In a rush, I didn't look at the To: field, assuming that my friend had made a private reply. He hadn't. I didn't either. I know that on lists where the list sets the reply-to field, this field can be overridden by the user if the user sets the option. (I discovered this after the forementioned misadventure.) Not all email applications are equipped with this option. Unfortunately the list of non-compliers includes the web-based application I am forced to use when more than 10 miles away from my campus. Didn't we discuss this less than a year ago? John Craig Senior wrote: > > I beg to differ. > > There is no need to automatically reply to the list. > > You can click on reply if you want to speak privately to the author, or > reply to all if you have something to say that may be of more general > interest. (I assume most email programs have at least as much flexibility as > Outlook Express...it's hard to believe that Microsoft has the best on the > market) > > It ain't broke Markus...please don't "fix" it. > > Craig Senior > > -----Original Message----- > From: hirsch_d@mindspring.com > To: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com > Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Date: Friday, October 20, 2000 12:27 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] [TO ADMIN] The > > >Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com wrote: > >> > > > >> This could easily be fixed if the administrator changes the > >>"Reply-To" option on the list server. I think such a change would be > >>welcome. Anyone with me on this one? > >> > >> Konrad Ciborowski > > > >I am all in favor of having the reply sent automatically to the list, > rather than the original sender, and have said so several times in the past. > I can think of two reasons beyond the simple mechanics: > > > >1) If a reply has good substantive content, perhaps all of us would benefit > from reading it. > > > >2) If a reply contains misinformation, at least it is in public, where > those who have greater knowledge of the laws than I can see it. If I make > an error in public, it can be caught and corrected, while a private reply > could propagate incorrect information with no one the wiser. > > > >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/ -- | Dr. John A. Kuchenbrod | jkuchen@ehc.edu | lazarus.ehc.edu/~jkuchen | | fight hunger--visit http://www.thehungersite.com daily | -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 21 08:10:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9KM7xn05954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 08:07:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9KM7rt05950 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 08:07:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:05:19 -0700 Message-ID: <01a101c03ae1$8f853be0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <00b301c03ac4$5c72c3c0$7911f7a5@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] [TO ADMIN] The Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:03:09 -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: > > You can click on reply if you want to speak privately to the author, or > reply to all if you have something to say that may be of more general > interest. (I assume most email programs have at least as much flexibility as > Outlook Express...it's hard to believe that Microsoft has the best on the > market) > In writing this e-mail with Outlook Express, after clicking on "Reply All" I had to delete three addresses on the To: line and move the BLML address from Cc: to To: The other option is to "Reply" to Craig only, erase his address, and add BLML's. Either method is a pain in the butt, but I'm not savvy enough to know whether there is a solution. What I need is a "hot key" macro that will do what I want. In the old days before Windows I had a DOS program that remained resident, providing me with all sorts of macros for use in different applications. Has progress eliminated that possibility? Marv -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 21 09:46:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9KNiMC06101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:44:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9KNiGt06097 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:44:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from dlm667 (1Cust198.tnt4.san-bernardino.ca.da.uu.net [63.25.128.198]) by avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA07243 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 16:44:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <023801c03aee$62452520$a492fea9@dlm667> From: "Demeter Manning" To: References: <00b301c03ac4$5c72c3c0$7911f7a5@oemcomputer> <01a101c03ae1$8f853be0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] [TO ADMIN] The "Reply" key Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 16:34:05 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marv wrote: > In writing this e-mail with Outlook Express, after clicking on "Reply > All" I had to delete three addresses on the To: line and move the BLML > address from Cc: to To: > (snip) Although I just lurk here, I'm a participant in several auto and motorcycle mailing lists (all international in scope) that generate over 300 emails per day, and would like to add another data point to the discussion. All except one use the "reply to list address" instead of "reply to individual" method. I have seen at least 3 other discussions about this topic on those lists, and the only one that regularly generates double postings, complaints, and missed messages is the one using the "reply to individual" method that BLML uses. The "reply to list address" method used by the other lists to which I subscribe doesn't seem to have any of the problems mentioned in those previous posts that argued against implementing that method here, and most folks seem pretty happy with it. Demeter L. Manning Crestline CA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 21 11:58:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9L1vDk06362 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 11:57:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9L1v7t06358 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 11:57:08 +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 13mnuA-000CXH-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 02:57:02 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 02:55:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] [TO ADMIN] The References: <00b301c03ac4$5c72c3c0$7911f7a5@oemcomputer> <39F09C7A.DA9A080C@ehc.edu> In-Reply-To: <39F09C7A.DA9A080C@ehc.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 <39F09C7A.DA9A080C@ehc.edu>, John Kuchenbrod writes snip > >I know that on lists where the list sets the reply-to field, this >field can be overridden by the user if the user sets the option. (I >discovered this after the forementioned misadventure.) Not all email >applications are equipped with this option. Unfortunately the list >of non-compliers includes the web-based application I am forced to use >when more than 10 miles away from my campus. > >Didn't we discuss this less than a year ago? We did, we felt we should leave it as it was. Of course DWS and I both use Turnpike which asks us which we want to do? :)) -- John (MadDog) Probst "Shameless plug for phone before fax to: 451 Mile End Road Turnpike" 020 8980 4947 London E3 4PA 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 Oct 21 12:21:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9L2LF306389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 12:21:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9L2L6t06385 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 12:21:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcauhq6.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.71.70]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA15589 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 22:21:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001001c03b05$7c2eefe0$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "BLML" References: <00b301c03ac4$5c72c3c0$7911f7a5@oemcomputer> <01a101c03ae1$8f853be0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] [TO ADMIN] The Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 22:20:30 -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: "Marvin L. French" To: Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 6:03 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] [TO ADMIN] The > > In writing this e-mail with Outlook Express, after clicking on "Reply > All" I had to delete three addresses on the To: line and move the BLML > address from Cc: to To: > > The other option is to "Reply" to Craig only, erase his address, and > add BLML's. > > Either method is a pain in the butt, but I'm not savvy enough to know > whether there is a solution. What I need is a "hot key" macro that > will do what I want. In the old days before Windows I had a DOS > program that remained resident, providing me with all sorts of macros > for use in different applications. Has progress eliminated that > possibility? > > Marv Marv, This isn't a one key macro, but it's pretty easy. In OE, you can create an entry in your address book Under Tools, open the address book. In the file menu, create a new contact. In creating the contact, type in BLML instead of the first name. Under e-mail addresses, add bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au . Hit OK to create the contact. When you open the address book again, you should have a contact called BLML with the e-mail address of the list. Now, to send mail to the list, select everything in the cc: field using the mouse (Place the mouse at the beginning of the field, hit the left mouse button, move the mouse to then end of the field and release the button (apologies if I'm being too elementary)). Hit the delete key and everything that you've selected will be gone. Now select everything in the "to:" field. You don't even have to delete this. Simply type in BLML (OE will autofill, so you probably will only have to type in the first letter or two). The text you type will replace the text you've selected. That will do it. One mouse stroke, one hit of the delete key, a second mouse stroke, and one or two letters typed in, and you're ready to send (you may want to type in a message first ) 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 Oct 21 12:44:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9L2i9V06437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 12:44:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9L2i3t06432 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 12:44:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc68559a ([24.5.183.132]) by mail.rdc2.occa.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20001021024358.MTAB25415.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 19:43:58 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] [TO ADMIN] The Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 19:47:36 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <01a101c03ae1$8f853be0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > In writing this e-mail with Outlook Express, after clicking on "Reply > All" I had to delete three addresses on the To: line and move the BLML > address from Cc: to To: Can't you just create a contact called "laws" That is what I have done - Then I hit reply, highlight the entire "to" field and just type "laws" I am using the fuller version of Outlook, but maybe you can do this too and it would be easier... 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 Sun Oct 22 03:12:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9LHAoZ08492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 03:10:50 +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.iae.nl (postfix@mail.iae.nl [194.151.64.19]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9LHAht08487 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 03:10:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d131.iae.nl [212.61.3.131]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id AA86020F1F for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 16:22:30 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <00b501c03b6a$94e6cde0$f9053dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Fw: [BLML] [TO ADMIN] The Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 16:13:21 +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 I agree. Using Outlook express 5 I select the "Forward" option, type in the To: box "br" and the addressbook fills in the complete address of BLML. Another option is to use the "Reply" option, but then I have to remove the senders name with the delete knob first. That's all. Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig Senior" To: ; Cc: Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 8:34 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] [TO ADMIN] The > I beg to differ. > > There is no need to automatically reply to the list. > > You can click on reply if you want to speak privately to the author, or > reply to all if you have something to say that may be of more general > interest. (I assume most email programs have at least as much flexibility as > Outlook Express...it's hard to believe that Microsoft has the best on the > market) > > It ain't broke Markus...please don't "fix" it. > > Craig Senior > > -----Original Message----- > From: hirsch_d@mindspring.com > To: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com > Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Date: Friday, October 20, 2000 12:27 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] [TO ADMIN] The > > > >Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com wrote: > >> > > > >> This could easily be fixed if the administrator changes the > >>"Reply-To" option on the list server. I think such a change would be > >>welcome. Anyone with me on this one? > >> > >> Konrad Ciborowski > > > >I am all in favor of having the reply sent automatically to the list, > rather than the original sender, and have said so several times in the past. > I can think of two reasons beyond the simple mechanics: > > > >1) If a reply has good substantive content, perhaps all of us would benefit > from reading it. > > > >2) If a reply contains misinformation, at least it is in public, where > those who have greater knowledge of the laws than I can see it. If I make > an error in public, it can be caught and corrected, while a private reply > could propagate incorrect information with no one the wiser. > > > >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 Sun Oct 22 03:12:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9LHCG008504 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 03:12:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9LHC9t08499 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 03:12:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-243.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.243]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA11782 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 11:54:15 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39F06393.F7733CB@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 17:24:03 +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] [TO ADMIN] The "Reply" key References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: EXT Eric Landau [mailto:elandau@cais.com] > > Sent: 20. October 2000 15:10 > > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > > Subject: Fwd: RE: [BLML] Teams of Four. > > > > > > A miskeying resulting in my replying to Konrad rather than the whole > > list. Message follows. Apololgies to Konrad for the double > > post. /eric > > This is something that happens to all BLMLers from time to time. > The reason is that the "Reply" option on BLML puts the _sender's_ > address in the "To" field. This is unfortunate. The natural behavior > would be to put the "bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au" address in the to > field. Now to reply to the list you have to choose "Reply to All" and > then remove all the addresses but one from the "To" field. > This could easily be fixed if the administrator changes the > "Reply-To" option on the list server. I think such a change would be > welcome. Anyone with me on this one? > > Konrad Ciborowski This has been proposed 27324 times before. The early answer, that it could produce bouncing, is no longer valid, since certainly the software can now cope with it. There has never been any serious negative reply to it. Markus keeps saying he will do it if we all ask for it. Isn't it time to ask for it ? Please only negative answers now. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 22 03:12:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9LHCLm08508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 03:12:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9LHCDt08503 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 03:12:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-243.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.243]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA11773 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 11:54:11 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39F062D6.146B997B@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 17:20:54 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. References: <3.0.6.32.20001020074010.007bdc90@eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: > > At 12:21 PM 10/20/00 +0300, Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com wrote: > >DB wrote: > > > >+---------------------------------------------------------------------+ > >In pair or team events, the contestants enter as pairs or teams. Except > >where authorized by the Director, contestants retain the same > >partnerships throughout a session. > >+---------------------------------------------------------------------+ > > > > > >> > > >> >This would explicitly give to the Director the power that > >> DWS and John > >> >Probst believe that he has anyway. But as the Law stands, I > >> believe that > > > > > >Grant Sterling responded: > >> > >> I disagree. This seems to me to be almost as vague as > >> the actual > >> text. If you want it explicit, you need a sentence that > >> clarifies _under > >> what circumstances_ the Director can authorize a substitute. > > > > > > This is a misunderstanding. DB never said that he thinks > >that this is how L4 should look like so there is no point in "disagreeing". > > I see that I was unclear. DB said, in effect, "if the lawmakers had > intended the law to mean what DWS [et al--apologies to some distinguished > others] think it means, they would have said this...." I disagree, because > I think DB's formulation is _exactly as ambiguous as the original_. So the > fact that the law doesn't read as above is no proof [nay, not even any > _evidence_] that the law wasn't intended as DWS interprets it. > I say that if L4 had been intended to allow the TD to authorize > substitutions for any cause whatsoever, it would have said so. It doesn't. > And if it had been intended to allow substitutions only when explicitly > authorized by other laws, it would have said that. [DB provides a very > nice statement of that version of the law later in the post I replied to.] > It doesn't. Ergo, by this reasoning, the law must mean neither thing! > But I reject this reasoning. We may wish the law were better worded, > but to argue that it doesn't mean 'x' because it might have been worded > better to say that is, IMHO, futile. > > >He just wrote what the wording of L4 would > >be if it were meant to let the TD authorize any change under any > >circumstances (including, say, substitution midway through > >the board) and for any reason (e.g. because the n°5 is a good > >looking, long legged, 17-year old female player). > >Under the wording I quoted above the Director > >would indeed have the power to allow _any_ line-up changes > >under _any_ circumstances. > > I strongly disagree. The wording above is, IMHO, not a whit more > explicit about why the TD can authorize changes than the orginal. > > > It doesn't mean that DB thinks that L4 _should_ say that. > >The essence of the disagreement between > >DB and DWS is that the DWS thinks that the _current_ wording > >of L4 already gives the TD this power. > > To summarize: > > > >DWS: L4 gives the TD the power to authorize any change of > > partnerships throughout one session > >DB : No, 'cos it were meant to it would read (+-...-+) > > And this reasoning I reject, even if I didn't think the example > given was flawed. [Which I do.] > Exactly. The law says the Director may allow substitutions. The law does not say whether or not there are any reasons for this. So if the TD wishes to allow substitution of a 74 year old male by a 37 year old female (I'm not so fond of 17-year olds), he is entitled to do so. Of course he will have to give a better reason than "she's so nice" if the substitute happens to be Sabine Auken. Why can't we trust the TD with this job, why do we need to look further into the laws than is needed ? Of course the TD shall not allow substitutions if the substitute has seen the boards before. Of course he shall not allow substitutions that have been forbidden by regulation. Of course he shall allow substitutions, even over these considerations, in cases of urgency. Let the TD do his job ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 22 03:13:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9LHDmf08536 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 03:13:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9LHDgt08532 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 03:13:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 22:40:16 -0700 Message-ID: <021701c03b21$14e9cc80$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] [TO ADMIN] The Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 22:33:35 -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 Linda Trent (and Hirsch Davis, similarly): > > > > Can't you just create a contact called "laws" > > That is what I have done - Then I hit reply, highlight the > entire "to" field and just type "laws" > > I am using the fuller version of Outlook, but maybe > you can do this too and it would be easier... > RTFM might also have been a good suggestion, thanks. Marv -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Oct 22 03:16:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9LHGX608574 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 03:16:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9LHGTt08570 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 03:16:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ba550811 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 01:18:10 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-012-p-228-75.tmns.net.au ([203.54.228.75]) by mail4.bigpond.com (Claudes-Equine-MailRouter V2.9c 7/1321382); 22 Oct 2000 01:18:09 Message-ID: <022001c03b7a$60028280$7ad736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 02:17:14 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Teams Dlr S, NS Vul. -- KT954 Q92 KT742 KQ75 J9863 76 Q2 853 A4 QJ98 A653 AT42 AJ83 KJT76 -- North East South West 1D P 1H X 3H 3S 6H P* P 6S P P X All Pass * agreed break in tempo Result: NS +1100 NS call Director about West's bid of 6S following East's hesitation. All agree that there was a significant hesitation. Director adjusted to NS +1430 (UI, Law 16) Region: Australia (i.e. 70% for LAs, no Law 12C3 for TDs yet, but Law 12C3 activated for ACs) EW appeal that 6H might not make, and that with two aces East's long trance was understandable. You are on the AC? Any opinions? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 22 03:35:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9LHZAD08622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 03:35:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.211.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e9LHZ3t08616 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 03:35:03 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 62776 invoked for bounce); 21 Oct 2000 10:28:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.41.63) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 21 Oct 2000 10:28:17 -0000 Message-ID: <011501c03b49$e61410e0$3f291dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] [TO ADMIN] The Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 12:21:43 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Linda Trent" wrote: > > In writing this e-mail with Outlook Express, after clicking on "Reply > > All" I had to delete three addresses on the To: line and move the BLML > > address from Cc: to To: > > Can't you just create a contact called "laws" The headers from Craig's Mail look as follows: From: "Craig Senior" To: , Cc: [No "reply-to" is set] If you press reply, you'll send mail to Craig only, not to the list. And if you press "reply all", you'll get To: "Craig Senior" Cc: hirsch_d@mindspring.com>, I.e., to correct the whole mess, one has to delete everything in Cc and To:, and then put BLML into the To: If Reply-To were set to BLML, then hitting "Reply to sender" would be sufficient. As this is a mailing-list, nobody needs a Cc: of a mail to the list. 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 Oct 22 04:56:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9LIu9608775 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 04:56:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.0.213]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9LIu3t08770 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 04:56:04 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 3A4FF8F83; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 14:55:59 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <022001c03b7a$60028280$7ad736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> References: <022001c03b7a$60028280$7ad736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 14:56:09 -0400 To: "Peter Gill" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Cc: "BLML" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 2:17 AM +1000 10/22/00, Peter Gill wrote: >Any opinions? Point of personal privilege: I am of the strong opinion that bidding diagrams should begin with West. As to the case at hand, I think under any jurisdiction is a LA to 6S. The question then is whether the huddle demonstrably suggested 6S over Pass. As I interpret 16A's "demonstrably" here one must be able to demonstrate, via a chain of reasoning, how the huddle suggested that 6S would likely be more successful than Pass. I can't demonstrate that myself, but I'd certainly listen to what other BLML members have to say on that score. To look at it another way, suppose West passed and both of East's Aces cashed. Might the director now adjust to 6SX? "When East doesn't double, and West holds no red honors, it's unlikely that they're beating this, so a save is only prudent. After all, it's IMPs and EW are at favorable!" I understand that the word "reasonably" was changed to "demonstrably" in the '97 Laws precisely so that West would not face an impossible choice in this kind of situation. If the huddle does not demonstrably suggest 6S then there is no adjustment to be made, and neither 12C2 nor 12C3 comes into the picture. 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 Sun Oct 22 06:10:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9LK9f208900 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 06:09:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9LK9Zt08896 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 06:09:36 +1000 (EST) Received: by esebh02nok with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 16:01:52 +0300 Message-ID: From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] [TO ADMIN] The Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 22:43:17 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: EXT Craig Senior [mailto:rts48u@ix.netcom.com] > Sent: 20. October 2000 21:34 > To: hirsch_d@mindspring.com; Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com > Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: [BLML] [TO ADMIN] The > > > It ain't broke Markus...please don't "fix" it. > It is. Your the third person on this thread who said a double post to me. Konrad Ciborowski -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 22 06:36:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9LKa3M08988 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 06:36:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.211.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e9LKZqt08978 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 06:35:53 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 72424 invoked for bounce); 21 Oct 2000 20:35:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.59.39) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 21 Oct 2000 20:35:48 -0000 Message-ID: <002e01c03b9e$c580d480$273b1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "BLML" References: <022001c03b7a$60028280$7ad736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 22:35:08 +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 "Peter Gill" asked: > Teams > Dlr S, NS Vul. > -- > KT954 > Q92 > KT742 > KQ75 J9863 > 76 Q2 > 853 A4 > QJ98 A653 > AT42 > AJ83 > KJT76 > -- > > North East South West > 1D P > 1H X 3H 3S > 6H P* P 6S > P P X All Pass > > * agreed break in tempo > > Result: NS +1100 > > NS call Director about West's bid of 6S following East's > hesitation. All agree that there was a significant hesitation. > > Director adjusted to NS +1430 (UI, Law 16) > > Region: Australia (i.e. 70% for LAs, no Law 12C3 for TDs > yet, but Law 12C3 activated for ACs) > > EW appeal that 6H might not make, and that with two aces > East's long trance was understandable. > > You are on the AC? Any opinions? 6S down -1100 stands, E's hesitation does not demonstrably suggest bidding 6S. I consider this case to be close. 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 Oct 22 06:36:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9LKa3V08989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 06:36:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.211.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e9LKZqt08979 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 06:35:53 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 72431 invoked for bounce); 21 Oct 2000 20:35:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.59.39) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 21 Oct 2000 20:35:49 -0000 Message-ID: <002f01c03b9e$c5c3f800$273b1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "bridge-laws" References: <00b501c03b6a$94e6cde0$f9053dd4@default> Subject: Re: [BLML] [TO ADMIN] The Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 22:36:17 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ben Schelen wrote: > I agree. > Using Outlook express 5 I select the "Forward" option, type in the To: box > "br" and the addressbook fills in the complete address of BLML. > Another option is to use the "Reply" option, but then I have to remove the > senders name with the delete knob first. > That's all. Your method changes the subject to Fw: . With the usual mix of mailclients in vogue, this quickly leads to subject lines like Re: Fw: Re: Fw: , if people who reply to your mail don't edit the subject line. Your Outlook which does not understand References:-headers then won't be able to sort those mails into threads. 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 Oct 23 03:17:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9MHEPO10811 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 03:14:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9MHEIt10807 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 03:14:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 22:48:41 -0700 Message-ID: <005501c03beb$f2848ba0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <022001c03b7a$60028280$7ad736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <002e01c03b9e$c580d480$273b1dc2@rabbit> Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 22:50:08 -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 Thomas Mann wrote: > "Peter Gill" asked: > > Teams > > Dlr S, NS Vul. > > -- > > KT954 > > Q92 > > KT742 > > KQ75 J9863 > > 76 Q2 > > 853 A4 > > QJ98 A653 > > AT42 > > AJ83 > > KJT76 > > -- > > > > North East South West > > 1D P > > 1H X 3H 3S > > 6H P* P 6S > > P P X All Pass > > > > * agreed break in tempo > > > > Result: NS +1100 > > > > NS call Director about West's bid of 6S following East's > > hesitation. All agree that there was a significant hesitation. > > > > Director adjusted to NS +1430 (UI, Law 16) > > > > Region: Australia (i.e. 70% for LAs, no Law 12C3 for TDs > > yet, but Law 12C3 activated for ACs) > > > > EW appeal that 6H might not make, and that with two aces > > East's long trance was understandable. > > > > You are on the AC? Any opinions? > > 6S down -1100 stands, E's hesitation does > not demonstrably suggest bidding 6S. > I consider this case to be close. > Indeed. I suspect, however, that West would have passed 6H had East passed in normal tempo. If that is so, then what happened to change hir mind? Since we need more than a suspicion to counter "demonstrably suggested," result stands. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Oct 23 03:19:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9MHJnk10832 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 03:19:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9MHJgt10828 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 03:19:43 +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 AAA19626 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 00:06:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/NCF-Sun-Client) id AAA18657; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 00:06:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 00:06:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200010220406.AAA18657@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >At 2:17 AM +1000 10/22/00, Peter Gill wrote: >>Any opinions? > >Point of personal privilege: I am of the strong opinion that bidding >diagrams should begin with West. I would also like the bidding to the immediate right of the diagram, as per the example given in the style guide of RGB. Back to bridge: Is there UI? Yes, a "clear" hesitation. Are there logical alternatives? Yes; pass, 6S, X readily come to mind. Does the UI demonstrably suggest one alternative over another? I would argue yes, the one being action over inaction. Pass is hardly forcing; nor does it matter that West guessed wrong (but, as it happens, got lucky). I think the hesitation demonstrably suggested that doing something would be better than doing nothing, that pass is an LA, and so the result should be rolled back like the director ruled. Now for L12C3: I see no reason to determine a % for 6H making/not making. I would give the benefit of the doubt to the declarer and give him the whole thing. Tony (aka ac342) ps please note: I am from the ACBL where 1) we may be harsher than most in hesitation/UI problems and 2) we do not use L12C3. :-) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Oct 23 03:33:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9MHXow10875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 03:33:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9MHXit10871 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 03:33:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-170.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.170]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA20050 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 17:13:08 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39F2B677.EFE97F28@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:42:15 +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] Two Aces References: <022001c03b7a$60028280$7ad736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <002e01c03b9e$c580d480$273b1dc2@rabbit> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thomas Dehn wrote: > > "Peter Gill" asked: > > Teams > > Dlr S, NS Vul. > > -- > > KT954 > > Q92 > > KT742 > > KQ75 J9863 > > 76 Q2 > > 853 A4 > > QJ98 A653 > > AT42 > > AJ83 > > KJT76 > > -- > > > > North East South West > > 1D P > > 1H X 3H 3S > > 6H P* P 6S > > P P X All Pass > > > > * agreed break in tempo > > > > Result: NS +1100 > > > > NS call Director about West's bid of 6S following East's > > hesitation. All agree that there was a significant hesitation. > > > > Director adjusted to NS +1430 (UI, Law 16) > > > > Region: Australia (i.e. 70% for LAs, no Law 12C3 for TDs > > yet, but Law 12C3 activated for ACs) > > > > EW appeal that 6H might not make, and that with two aces > > East's long trance was understandable. > > > > You are on the AC? Any opinions? > > 6S down -1100 stands, E's hesitation does > not demonstrably suggest bidding 6S. > I consider this case to be close. > East's hesitation does suggest that passing is not the correct action. You might call this a cooperative pass. However, you might also call it a preventive pass. Let's hesitate a while. My ethical partner will then feel obliged to pass, and we can hope that the contract fails. We cannot decide from the other side of the world about this, of course, not without grilling that east. Anyway, it is one of those cases where you'd wish that L16 would provide a "gradual" approach. Something like : small UI, unclear suggestion, almost no LA => no correction. As the law stands though (*), I believe a correction to +1430 is needed. Tough. Explanation to east = don't hesitate and then pass. (*) I am NOT advocating a change in the laws here ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 23 04:14:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9MIE1j10961 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 04:14:01 +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 e9MIDtt10957 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 04:13:55 +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 OAA03127 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 14:13:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA01526 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 14:13:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 14:13:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200010221813.OAA01526@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Wildavsky > As to the case at hand, I think under any jurisdiction is a LA to 6S. > The question then is whether the huddle demonstrably suggested 6S > over Pass. Adam is certainly on target here, as others have said. > to demonstrate, via a chain of reasoning, how the huddle suggested > that 6S would likely be more successful than Pass. And here too. I think we need to have more information and _at least_ to know how long the hesitation was. Peter seems to suggest at first only a brief break in tempo, but then I believe he used words something like "long trance." Also, there is no indication how skilled or otherwise EW might be. If the break is only brief, say 10 s or so (and yes, I remember that Australia doesn't follow the usual skip bid/mandatory pause rules), it doesn't seem to me to suggest much of anything. I'd be much more worried about a _fast_ pass. But to my mind, a long trance suggests bidding. A player who has defense to beat the contract will usually either double it or pass pretty quickly, but a player who wants to take a sacrifice has a lot to think about. Will the contract make? Can partner have defense? Will the sacrifice be too expensive? Bottom line: at minimum, we need more information. Perhaps this is a case where you "had to be there" and hear what EW said. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Oct 23 07:36:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9MLZkU11170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 07:35:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe44.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9MLZdt11166 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 07:35:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 14:35:24 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [205.208.129.31] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <022001c03b7a$60028280$7ad736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <002e01c03b9e$c580d480$273b1dc2@rabbit> Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 16:37:49 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Oct 2000 21:35:24.0091 (UTC) FILETIME=[FC7498B0:01C03C6F] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Thomas Dehn To: BLML Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2000 3:35 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces | | "Peter Gill" asked: | > Teams | > Dlr S, NS Vul. | > -- | > KT954 | > Q92 | > KT742 | > KQ75 J9863 | > 76 Q2 | > 853 A4 | > QJ98 A653 | > AT42 | > AJ83 | > KJT76 | > -- | > | > North East South West | > 1D P | > 1H X 3H 3S | > 6H P* P 6S | > P P X All Pass | > | > * agreed break in tempo | > | > Result: NS +1100 | > | > NS call Director about West's bid of 6S following East's | > hesitation. All agree that there was a significant hesitation. | > | > Director adjusted to NS +1430 (UI, Law 16) | > | > Region: Australia (i.e. 70% for LAs, no Law 12C3 for TDs | > yet, but Law 12C3 activated for ACs) | > | > EW appeal that 6H might not make, and that with two aces | > East's long trance was understandable. | > | > You are on the AC? Any opinions? Consider responder’s perspective. Partner has made a TO double and has not supported except by his double, while he has a chunky hand with a KQ,. The indicated action is to pass or double since there is a likelihood that 6H can be defeated on power. The explanation for responder choosing a less than indicated action suggests his call was influenced by the tempo more than the AI. Why would it have been influenced? Most likely by an inference that partner has extra length in spades. And presuming that he has extra length he probably would have overcalled if he had the ace. So the other side has the S ace and now the KQ are worthless on defense. Would this be considered as demonstrably suggested over pass? Roger Pewick Houston, Texas | 6S down -1100 stands, E's hesitation does | not demonstrably suggest bidding 6S. | I consider this case to be close. | | | 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 Oct 23 07:42:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9MLfrE11193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 07:41:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.211.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e9MLfjt11189 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 07:41:47 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 12106 invoked for bounce); 22 Oct 2000 21:41:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.58.166) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 22 Oct 2000 21:41:40 -0000 Message-ID: <020001c03c71$2320d860$a63a1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <022001c03b7a$60028280$7ad736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <002e01c03b9e$c580d480$273b1dc2@rabbit> <39F2B677.EFE97F28@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 23:43:07 +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 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Herman De Wael" wrote: > Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > > "Peter Gill" asked: > > > Teams > > > Dlr S, NS Vul. > > > -- > > > KT954 > > > Q92 > > > KT742 > > > KQ75 J9863 > > > 76 Q2 > > > 853 A4 > > > QJ98 A653 > > > AT42 > > > AJ83 > > > KJT76 > > > -- > > > > > > North East South West > > > 1D P > > > 1H X 3H 3S > > > 6H P* P 6S > > > P P X All Pass > > > > > > * agreed break in tempo > > > > > > Result: NS +1100 > > > > > > NS call Director about West's bid of 6S following East's > > > hesitation. All agree that there was a significant hesitation. > > > > > > Director adjusted to NS +1430 (UI, Law 16) > > > > > > Region: Australia (i.e. 70% for LAs, no Law 12C3 for TDs > > > yet, but Law 12C3 activated for ACs) > > > > > > EW appeal that 6H might not make, and that with two aces > > > East's long trance was understandable. > > > > > > You are on the AC? Any opinions? > > > > 6S down -1100 stands, E's hesitation does > > not demonstrably suggest bidding 6S. > > I consider this case to be close. > > > > East's hesitation does suggest that passing is not the > correct action. You might call this a cooperative pass. > > However, you might also call it a preventive pass. > > Let's hesitate a while. My ethical partner will then feel > obliged to pass, and we can hope that the contract fails. > > We cannot decide from the other side of the world about > this, of course, not without grilling that east. I might grill E/W depending on the impression they give. 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 Oct 23 07:50:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9MLoLa11214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 07:50:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from phnxpop5.phnx.uswest.net (phnxpop5.phnx.uswest.net [206.80.192.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e9MLoFt11210 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 07:50:15 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 30822 invoked by alias); 22 Oct 2000 21:50:10 -0000 Delivered-To: fixup-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au@fixme Received: (qmail 30809 invoked by uid 0); 22 Oct 2000 21:50:10 -0000 Received: from vdsl-130-13-82-214.phnx.uswest.net (HELO uswest.net) (130.13.82.214) by phnxpop5.phnx.uswest.net with SMTP; 22 Oct 2000 21:50:10 -0000 Message-ID: <39F360FC.7C23F5C5@uswest.net> Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 14:49:48 -0700 From: Peter Clinch X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Gill CC: BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces References: <022001c03b7a$60028280$7ad736cb@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: > > NS call Director about West's bid of 6S following East's > hesitation. All agree that there was a significant hesitation. > > Director adjusted to NS +1430 (UI, Law 16) > > Region: Australia (i.e. 70% for LAs, no Law 12C3 for TDs > yet, but Law 12C3 activated for ACs) > > EW appeal that 6H might not make, and that with two aces > East's long trance was understandable. > > You are on the AC? Any opinions? > I would ask West what it was about his moderate 4-2-3-4 eight count that made bidding 6S attractive. As a sceptic, it would seem inconceivable to me that it was the authenticity of the leap to 6H rather than his partner's deliberations. Not only are there other LAs, but 6S looks in itself somewhat distant on the list. Otherwise give us the names of EW, and we can all happily leap to slam in similar situations when we encounter them. EW's comment in appeal that the "long trance was understandable" is also disturbing. It does seem to lend credence to the idea that the hesitation had (maybe unconsciously) a preventative intent. Somebody might want to have a quiet word with West about that. Despite that, this looks like a straight "action vs inaction" call to me, and East's cards themselves hugely speak to inaction. Suppose West had doubled, the contract had failed and the director had (correctly) adjusted. Would EW then have come and claimed that a hesitation might have suggested long spades? Just because West drew the wrong inference doesn't mean that the score adjustment is out of order. I would say that the contract should be rolled back to 6H making. It's true that this is not a lovely contract, but given the amount of work required to make it, I would judge that the simpleton's line of playing for hearts 2-2 is more likely to be chosen (and succeed) than not. No need for 12C3. Peter Clinch. Phoenix, Arizona. P.S. My first post to this forum. Treat me gently. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Oct 23 08:51:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9MMpCU11298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 08:51:12 +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 e9MMp5t11293 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 08:51:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.41] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13nTxF-000EsV-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 23:51:02 +0100 Message-ID: <001e01c03c7a$cb22b520$295908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: <022001c03b7a$60028280$7ad736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:48:08 +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 "Justice must not only be seen to be done but has to be seen to be believed." (Beachcomber) ==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+== ----- Original Message ----- From: Adam Wildavsky To: Peter Gill Cc: BLML Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2000 7:56 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces > At 2:17 AM +1000 10/22/00, Peter Gill wrote: > >Any opinions? > > Point of personal privilege: I am of the strong > opinion that bidding diagrams should begin > with West. > +=+ South would be tolerable.+=+ > > As to the case at hand, I think under any > jurisdiction is a LA to 6S. > +=+ This statement seems to jump right past the first question in my mind. "Is East's pass unequivocally forcing?" This is a situation and vulnerability in which it might well be so. We need to establish, if we can, what the pass means in *this* partnership. From West's point of view one potential reason for East's thought is judgement whether to bid, double, or force West to choose to bid or double. If it is clearly established to be a forcing pass then Pass is not a LA for West; if the evidence fails to persuade us then we rule against E/W, giving the margin of doubt to N/S. ~ 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 Oct 23 09:47:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9MNkja11396 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 09:46:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from acsys.anu.edu.au (acsys [150.203.20.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9MNkft11392 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 09:46:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from accordion (accordion.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.58]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA26847 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 09:46:40 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.20001023104641.01214dc0@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 10:46:42 +1100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: RE: [BLML] [TO ADMIN] The "Reply" key Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hmm - must be getting close to Christmas. This topic always seems to come up when Christmas is getting close :-) Ok, let me add some data points from previous discussions: - when we have discussed this before and I asked for a vote, it was typically 5:3 against. That's total votes, not a ratio! Out of 260+ subscribers I'd expect a little more feedback, but that's Ok. This time round, the thread seems to have the greatest participation so far, and has been more in favour than before - so I expect the naysayers to be back in droves now. - the bouncing/looping issue is handled 99% of the time by sendmail and majordomo each doing their own checks, and includes checks for vacation feedback, just as vacation usually checks that it's not responding to a discussion list e-mail (see e.g. the Precedence: header). But it is not perfect. If people are worried about mail explosions I will hand out the list password to a few people in different timezones who can then quickly unsubscribe any miscreants. No unsubscribing unpopular members though! :-) - there are some extremely long discussions on this topic at http://www.cuenet.com/help/munge.html "reply-to munging is harmful" and its counter: http://www.metasystema.org/essays/reply-to-useful.mhtml They're from 1997 and haven't changed much since then. They're (mostly) worth a read. - As Herman noted, I am happy to do it (or not), and it takes less than a minute (it's a majordomo config line). I don't require *all* BLML to vote for it, just some vaguely supportive concensus :-) - As somebody else noted, if you *do* change it, it makes it harder to reply just to the poster. But leaving it as it is increases the chance of either mistakenly replying to the sender only (Reply), or of sending duplicates to the sender and the list (Reply-All). - Also, if you *do* change it, it increases the chance of sending a private reply to the public list. I'm not sure how much of an issue that is on BLML, since we're not usually discussing personal matters. As a rule of thumb, I read everything I send twice, including the headers. I often tone things down the second time, or delete a few people from the headers :-) - I believe some user mail agents allow you to rewrite headers yourself based on a variety of rules (if sender = owner-bridge-laws => munge reply-to = bridge-laws), and apparently some ISP's do as well (John/DWS?). So, once again, let me know where you stand (if you haven't already). If people want to give it a try for a while, I can turn it on and off at a moments notice (just make sure you email me directly). Cheers, Markus >> > > From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com >> > > The natural behavior >> > > would be to put the "bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au" address in the to >> > > field. Markus Buchhorn, Advanced Computational Systems CRC | Ph: +61 2 62798810 email: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au, snail: ACSys, RSISE Bldg,|Fax: +61 2 62798602 Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia |Mobile: 0417 281429 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 23 12:03:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9N21tn11550 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 12:01:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from phnxpop2.phnx.uswest.net (phnxpop2.phnx.uswest.net [206.80.192.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e9N21nt11546 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 12:01:49 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 54118 invoked by alias); 23 Oct 2000 02:01:36 -0000 Delivered-To: fixup-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au@fixme Received: (qmail 53886 invoked by uid 0); 23 Oct 2000 02:01:31 -0000 Received: from vdsl-130-13-82-214.phnx.uswest.net (HELO uswest.net) (130.13.82.214) by phnxpop2.phnx.uswest.net with SMTP; 23 Oct 2000 02:01:31 -0000 Message-ID: <39F39BE5.E8398ADA@uswest.net> Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 19:01:09 -0700 From: Peter Clinch X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Gill , BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces References: <022001c03b7a$60028280$7ad736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <39F360FC.7C23F5C5@uswest.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Clinch wrote: > Peter Gill wrote: > > > > > NS call Director about West's bid of 6S following East's > > hesitation. All agree that there was a significant hesitation. > > > > Director adjusted to NS +1430 (UI, Law 16) > > > > Region: Australia (i.e. 70% for LAs, no Law 12C3 for TDs > > yet, but Law 12C3 activated for ACs) > > > > EW appeal that 6H might not make, and that with two aces > > East's long trance was understandable. > > > > You are on the AC? Any opinions? > > > > I would ask West what it was about his moderate 4-2-3-4 eight count that > made bidding 6S attractive. As a sceptic, it would seem inconceivable to me > that it was the authenticity of the leap to 6H rather than his partner's > deliberations. Not only are there other LAs, but 6S looks in itself somewhat > distant on the list. Otherwise give us the names of EW, and we can all > happily leap to slam in similar situations when we encounter them. > > EW's comment in appeal that the "long trance was understandable" is also > disturbing. It does seem to lend credence to the idea that the hesitation > had (maybe unconsciously) a preventative intent. Somebody might want to have > a quiet word with West about that. > > Despite that, this looks like a straight "action vs inaction" call to me, > and East's cards themselves hugely speak to inaction. I mean West's cards. Apologies. > Suppose West had > doubled, the contract had failed and the director had (correctly) adjusted. > Would EW then have come and claimed that a hesitation might have suggested > long spades? Just because West drew the wrong inference doesn't mean that > the score adjustment is out of order. I would say that the contract should > be rolled back to 6H making. It's true that this is not a lovely contract, > but given the amount of work required to make it, I would judge that the > simpleton's line of playing for hearts 2-2 is more likely to be chosen (and > succeed) than not. No need for 12C3. > > Peter Clinch. > > Phoenix, Arizona. > > P.S. My first post to this forum. Treat me gently. > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Oct 23 12:30:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9N2Tr311585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 12:29:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9N2Tnt11581 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 12:29:49 +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 NAA14339 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:24:32 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:25:20 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Hammurabi To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:26:37 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 23/10/2000 01:22:07 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk If the Portland Club had exclusive responsibility for the Laws of Bridge, and you were its owner, what changes to TFLB would you make? 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 Oct 23 14:21:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9N4KHL11829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 14:20:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9N4K9t11823 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 14:20:09 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 866C5487C8; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 00:20:04 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <022001c03b7a$60028280$7ad736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <002e01c03b9e$c580d480$273b1dc2@rabbit> Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 00:19:39 -0400 To: "Roger Pewick" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Cc: "blml" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 4:37 PM -0500 10/22/00, Roger Pewick wrote: >Consider responder's perspective. Partner has made a TO double and has >not supported except by his double, while he has a chunky hand with a >KQ,. The indicated action is to pass or double since there is a >likelihood that 6H can be defeated on power. The explanation for >responder choosing a less than indicated action suggests his call was >influenced by the tempo more than the AI. Why would it have been >influenced? Most likely by an inference that partner has extra length >in spades. And presuming that he has extra length he probably would >have overcalled if he had the ace. So the other side has the S ace and >now the KQ are worthless on defense. > >Would this be considered as demonstrably suggested over pass? I remain unconvinced. First of all I don't agree with your approach. We should not start by examining the call chosen by the player in possession of UI. Rather we should consider what the UI suggests. If we determine that the UI suggests one LA over another then we should be prepared to demonstrate that that is what it suggests. At the table West is required not to choose an LA that was suggested, so the reasoning we use to decide what the UI demonstrably suggests must be clear enough that a player could apply it at the table. Here we must be prepared to explain to West why he should have known that the hesitation was likely to indicate extra offense rather than extra defense. Second, West knew from the authorized information (North leapt to slam) that his S KQ were likely worthless on defense. A more interesting question is what his C QJ were worth, and where partner's honors are. Since East doesn't have more than five points in spades he must have something outside. 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 Mon Oct 23 17:21:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9N7HI612049 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 17:17:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9N7HBt12045 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 17:17:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.83] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13nbqp-000JQa-00; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 08:16:55 +0100 Message-ID: <005601c03cc1$77616480$535908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Peter Clinch" , "BLML" References: <022001c03b7a$60028280$7ad736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <39F360FC.7C23F5C5@uswest.net> <39F39BE5.E8398ADA@uswest.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 07:52:38 +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 "Justice must not only be seen to be done but has to be seen to be believed." (Beachcomber) ==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+== ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Clinch To: Peter Gill ; BLML Sent: Monday, October 23, 2000 3:01 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces > > > > Peter Clinch. > > > > Phoenix, Arizona. > > > > P.S. My first post to this forum. Treat me gently. > > +=+ Welcome. Do come in. If you notice any fierce language around here you will soon work out that it probably reflects only the capability of a handful of people to rub each other up the wrong way. Most people are shy diffident souls - they are largely TDs, you know. :-) The major problem with the Two Aces case is the reason EW are said to have given for appealing. If that is the whole case their appeal will not get off the ground. But the AC needs to dig a little to make sure there are no other aspects to uncover before it puts both its feet in the water. Those who say they need to hear the players are on good ground. It is all too easy to reach decisions in a vacuum, making the assumption that the pair have the agreements we would expect. ~ 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 Oct 23 17:21:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9N7H2c12043 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 17:17:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9N7Gut12039 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 17:16:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.83] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13nbqm-000JQa-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 08:16:52 +0100 Message-ID: <005401c03cc1$75acfdc0$535908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] Fw: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 07:08:30 +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 "Justice must not only be seen to be done but has to be seen to be believed." (Beachcomber) ==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+== ----- Original Message ----- From: Mail Delivery System > A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its > recipients. The following address(es) failed: > > blml@rgb.anu.edu.au: > SMTP error from remote mailer after RCPT TO:: > host rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]: > 550 5.1.1 ... User unknown > > ==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+== > A minor glitch with the 'gester' machine has > meant that for a few days before Saturday > messages in and out were not received and > not sent. If you are looking for comment on > something and it has not appeared, you may > need to restate the question. ~ 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 Oct 23 17:29:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9N7R1612067 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 17:27:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9N7Qst12063 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 17:26:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 00:24:18 -0700 Message-ID: <010c01c03cc2$77aca8e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <022001c03b7a$60028280$7ad736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <002e01c03b9e$c580d480$273b1dc2@rabbit> Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 00:25:18 -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 Adam Wildavsky wrote: > Roger Pewick wrote: > >Consider responder's perspective. Partner has made a TO double and has > >not supported except by his double, while he has a chunky hand with a > >KQ,. The indicated action is to pass or double since there is a > >likelihood that 6H can be defeated on power. The explanation for > >responder choosing a less than indicated action suggests his call was > >influenced by the tempo more than the AI. Why would it have been > >influenced? Most likely by an inference that partner has extra length > >in spades. And presuming that he has extra length he probably would > >have overcalled if he had the ace. So the other side has the S ace and > >now the KQ are worthless on defense. > > > >Would this be considered as demonstrably suggested over pass? > > I remain unconvinced. > > First of all I don't agree with your approach. We should not start by > examining the call chosen by the player in possession of UI. Rather > we should consider what the UI suggests. What the UI demonstrably suggests to West, not to you or me. > If we determine that the UI > suggests one LA over another then we should be prepared to > demonstrate that that is what it suggests. LA = logical alternative. Alternative to what? This use of LA is confusing. The bid was 6S. Was that bid demonstrably suggested to West by the hesitation? No, end. Yes, continue. Were there any logical alternatives to the bid of 6S? No, end. Yes, adjust. > At the table West is > required not to choose an LA that was suggested, so the reasoning we > use to decide what the UI demonstrably suggests must be clear enough > that a player could apply it at the table. Here we must be prepared > to explain to West why he should have known that the hesitation was > likely to indicate extra offense rather than extra defense. Likely to indicate extra offense *or* extra defense. I don't see that it clearly shows one more than the other, but it denies the lack of both. > > Second, West knew from the authorized information (North leapt to > slam) that his S KQ were likely worthless on defense. A more > interesting question is what his C QJ were worth, and where partner's > honors are. Since East doesn't have more than five points in spades > he must have something outside. A possible argument: Since the hesitation shows either extra offense or extra defense, and pretty well denies a psychic double, West might have felt that he had to do something other than pass. If so, this means that action, not inaction, was suggested by East's tempo. Assuming that N/S are not crazy, he guesses that East has extra offense, not extra defense, and bids 6S. Adjust to +1430 for N/S, the most favorable result that was likely absent the infraction. For E/W, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable is 6H doubled, making. No need for L12C3, since the L12C2 adjustment is quite equitable. :)) Based on the meager information we have about the pair, their partnership agreements, their psyching tendencies, and what happened at the table, I don't see that this argument is strong enough to justify a change to the table result, but it is obviously a very close decision. I'm pretty sure Ron Gerard would adjust but Rich Colker (author of "If it Hesitates, Shoot It") wouldn't, and both are respected authorities on UI-related decisions. Anyone getting a harsh L12C2 adjustment from a TD in Australia ought to appeal, if only to get a more favorable adjustment when the AC applies 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 Mon Oct 23 17:50:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9N7lHu12096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 17:47:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9N7lDt12092 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 17:47:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id oa524278 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 17:47:56 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-212-4.tmns.net.au ([203.54.212.4]) by mail7.bigpond.com (Claudes-Radiant-MailRouter V2.9c 15/10817277); 23 Oct 2000 17:47:52 Message-ID: <007b01c03ccd$c3835420$04d436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 18:46:40 +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 Steve Willner wrote: >I think we need to have more information and _at least_ to >know how long the hesitation was. Peter seems to suggest >at first only a brief break in tempo, but then I believe he used >words something like "long trance." Between 30 seconds and a minute, to summarise the various players' opinions. >Also, there is no indication how skilled or otherwise EW >might be. Reasonable but not particularly good. West says that he thought that he was meant to make the bid he would have made had partner not hesitated (a not uncommon belief amongst players in this part of the world), and thought that at the favourable vulnerability with the double fit and trusting North to have a big red two suiter with a void for his leap, 6S was what he would have bid without the hesitation. Not that the Laws back up his line of thought, but all I can do is tell you what he says. East says he was thinking about doubling, and decided not to when he realised that North probably had a black void for his jump to 6H. 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 Oct 23 18:27:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9N8NsP12163 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 18:23:54 +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 (f195.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.195]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9N8Nmt12159 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 18:23:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 01:23:40 -0700 Received: from 172.139.70.170 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 08:23:40 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.139.70.170] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 01:23:40 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Oct 2000 08:23:40.0621 (UTC) FILETIME=[8C980FD0:01C03CCA] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Marvin L. French" >Likely to indicate extra offense *or* extra defense. I don't see that it >clearly shows one more than the other, but it denies the lack of both. I'm not certain that it necessarily has to show either. East has nothing more than one spade more than his double showed (admittedly extra defense), but he could be thinking about whether his values are better suited for offense or defense. With 2 Aces, neither of which are in a would-be trump suit, I'm somewhat (not very) surprized he doesn't decide to double himself, but I think his hesitation can show that he doesn't know whether to double or sacrifice because his real values cater to neither possibility. I think that if east had extra offense or defense in some more meaningful way that we would never have passed, e.g., double with the AH, sac with the AS. -Todd, still confused by the people who think pass is an LA, but I'm a gambling man and notoriously bad at guessing what sways the mob on this type of problem. _________________________________________________________________________ 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 Oct 23 18:44:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9N8g4W12201 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 18:42:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9N8fvt12197 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 18:41:58 +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 KAA08116; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 10:39:35 +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 KAA18084; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 10:41:35 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001023105210.008d8100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 10:52:10 +0200 To: "Peter Gill" , "BLML" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces In-Reply-To: <022001c03b7a$60028280$7ad736cb@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 02:17 22/10/00 +1000, Peter Gill wrote: > KT954 > Q92 > KT742 >KQ75 J9863 >76 Q2 >853 A4 >QJ98 A653 > AT42 > AJ83 > KJT76 > -- > >North East South West > 1D P > 1H X 3H 3S > 6H P* P 6S > P P X All Pass > >* agreed break in tempo > >Result: NS +1100 > >NS call Director about West's bid of 6S following East's >hesitation. All agree that there was a significant hesitation. > >Director adjusted to NS +1430 (UI, Law 16) > AG : the director did the right thing (adjust, in case of doubt, to the most favorable result to the NOS, and let the AC get out of the fix) ; but if I were an AC member, I would note the following : 1) the hesitation did not specifically suggest a 6S bid. In this case, E was clearly thinking about doubling. So, while pass was clearly a LA, could we imagine West was influenced into bidding 6 ? 2) If we rule Yes (and I think we eventually would, if we take the definition of LA to the letter), giving N/S +1430 is too extreme. I would give N/S 80% of the score (MPs or IMPs) for 6H = and 20% of the score for 6H -1, since it is indeed not sure whtehter 6H will win (Declarer might well think East has a singleton H). In fact, I think 6H will go down more than 20% of the time, but we have to biase the result slightly in favor of the NOS - do you remember this one, Herman ? 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 Oct 23 19:48:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9N9m9V12292 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 19:48:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9N9m2t12288 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 19:48:03 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id KAA03319 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 10:47:53 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 10:47 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces 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: <022001c03b7a$60028280$7ad736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" wrote: > > You are on the AC? Any opinions? Pass, 6S and Double are all LAs in any jurisdiction. I think partner has hesitated because he is considering a double but is worried about exposing a possible heart winner, although there is a possibility that he is contemplating a sacrifice. My hand is pretty suitable for defence (slow values, no unexpected length). Obviously if I double and pard was thinking of a sacrifice he will make it then. Double is a very good bet - but suggested by the UI since it caters to both possibilities. Generally if pard is contemplating a penalty double it will be a bad idea to sacrifice. I think this suggests pass over 6S. I will therefore bid 6S expecting to turn a probable +100 into a -1100/1400, c'est la vie. OK the above logic depends on correctly interpreting the hesitation. I believe that in this sort of situation we should assume that a correct interpretation is made (unless we rule that there are X equally likely meanings and that the UI suggests nothing at all). I'd be happier adjusting 6H-1 to 6S*-5 here. I can't do that and adjust 6S-5 to 6H=. West must be allowed a legal choice of call. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 23 20:02:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9NA2jW12312 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 20:02:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9NA2dt12308 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 20:02:39 +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 MAA07258; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 12:00:26 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id MAA21124; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 12:02:27 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001023121302.008d6350@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 12:13:02 +0200 To: "Todd Zimnoch" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces 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 01:23 23/10/00 PDT, you wrote: >>From: "Marvin L. French" >>Likely to indicate extra offense *or* extra defense. I don't see that it >>clearly shows one more than the other, but it denies the lack of both. > > I'm not certain that it necessarily has to show either. East has >nothing more than one spade more than his double showed (admittedly extra >defense), but he could be thinking about whether his values are better >suited for offense or defense. With 2 Aces, neither of which are in a >would-be trump suit, I'm somewhat (not very) surprized he doesn't decide to >double himself, but I think his hesitation can show that he doesn't know >whether to double or sacrifice because his real values cater to neither >possibility. AG : mmm. This suggests that the slow pass didn't convey very much information, since the in-tempo pass would still mean 'I don't know what to do'. Perhaps the UI is slighter than we all thought. 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 Oct 23 22:12:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9NCBTg12479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 22:11:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9NCBLt12475 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 22:11:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-213.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.213]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA25706 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 14:11:14 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39F41A9C.155A3B1@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:01:48 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces 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: > > > I'd be happier adjusting 6H-1 to 6S*-5 here. I can't do that and > adjust 6S-5 to 6H=. West must be allowed a legal choice of call. > This is a very interesting remark, Tim. You are absolutely right. And add to this that East must be allowed to think, and he must be allowed to pass after his pause. This is a very close call, and since this is the BLML and not the ACML, that should sum it up. So we'll probably go on and on for 2 months now. -- 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 Oct 23 22:17:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9NCHNT12497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 22:17:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9NCHHt12493 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 22:17:17 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id NAA00129 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:17:09 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:17 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces 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: <007b01c03ccd$c3835420$04d436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> "Peter Gill" wrote: > > Reasonable but not particularly good. West says that he > thought that he was meant to make the bid he would have > made had partner not hesitated (a not uncommon belief > amongst players in this part of the world), and thought that > at the favourable vulnerability with the double fit and trusting > North to have a big red two suiter with a void for his leap, > 6S was what he would have bid without the hesitation. Not > that the Laws back up his line of thought, but all I can do is > tell you what he says. East says he was thinking about doubling, > and decided not to when he realised that North probably had a > black void for his jump to 6H. To be fair to West I think the laws *do* back up his belief in the specific situation where "West cannot# work out what the UI suggests". Given the opinions on this group I would say that is a pretty fair assessment. I would like a word with West to find out if he tried to work through this step and help clarify his UI obligations. #We can still adjust in situations where we believe West should have been able to work things out. Tim WM -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Oct 23 22:23:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9NCNUP12545 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 22:23:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9NCNOt12541 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 22:23:24 +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 e9NCNIj40705 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 08:23:19 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20001023080448.00b1c5a0@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, 23 Oct 2000 08:21:52 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces In-Reply-To: <022001c03b7a$60028280$7ad736cb@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 12:17 PM 10/21/00, Peter wrote: >Teams >Dlr S, NS Vul. > -- > KT954 > Q92 > KT742 >KQ75 J9863 >76 Q2 >853 A4 >QJ98 A653 > AT42 > AJ83 > KJT76 > -- > >North East South West > 1D P > 1H X 3H 3S > 6H P* P 6S > P P X All Pass > >* agreed break in tempo > >Result: NS +1100 > >NS call Director about West's bid of 6S following East's >hesitation. All agree that there was a significant hesitation. > >Director adjusted to NS +1430 (UI, Law 16) > >Region: Australia (i.e. 70% for LAs, no Law 12C3 for TDs >yet, but Law 12C3 activated for ACs) > >EW appeal that 6H might not make, and that with two aces >East's long trance was understandable. > >You are on the AC? Any opinions? It looks like East's huddle was because he was thinking about doubling 6H; he surely wasn't thinking of saving on a fast auction with two side aces. If so, then even if West's 6S bid was in some way prompted by East's tempo, the fact is that he has misread the huddle as "suggesting" the save, when the correct read would have counter-suggested it. Given that, I don't see how the AC should find that the save was "demonstrably suggested". Put another way, suppose East, while huddling, had been muttering his thoughts out loud for West to hear (or had somehow telepathically "showed" West his hand!). Would we not be inclined to *require* West to bid 6S, as that would now clearly be the LA which was *not* demonstrably suggested by the UI? If that's the case, we can't adjust here, or we return to the bad old "pre-demonstrably" days when ACs tended to penalize any successful action after a tempo break. Imagine that West had told the AC "I know his mannerisms so well that I could tell from his huddle that he held two aces, so I decided I had to bend over backwards to be ethical by taking the save". In real life I'd want to talk to the players, of course, but I would guess that what I would hear would incline me to rule that 6S was not demonstrably suggested by the UI; no adjustment. 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 Oct 24 01:41:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9NFeT012804 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 01:40:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9NFeMt12800 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 01:40:23 +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 IAA23684; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 08:40:18 -0700 Message-Id: <200010231540.IAA23684@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 22 Oct 2000 00:06:38 PDT." <200010220406.AAA18657@freenet10.carleton.ca> Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 08:40:18 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tony Edwards wrote: > Back to bridge: > Is there UI? Yes, a "clear" hesitation. > Are there logical alternatives? Yes; pass, 6S, X readily come to mind. > Does the UI demonstrably suggest one alternative over another? I would > argue yes, the one being action over inaction. Pass is hardly forcing; > nor does it matter that West guessed wrong (but, as it happens, got > lucky). I think the hesitation demonstrably suggested that doing > something would be better than doing nothing . . . Teams Dlr S, NS Vul. -- KT954 Q92 KT742 KQ75 J9863 76 Q2 853 A4 QJ98 A653 AT42 AJ83 KJT76 -- North East South West 1D P 1H X 3H 3S 6H ...P P 6S P P X All Pass This is a line of reasoning I've never been able to accept. In some auctions, a hesitation would clearly suggest that a penalty double might be better than passing. (For example, one side bids uncontested to a slam, then the opponent who will be on lead unexpectedly hesitates; he can't be thinking about anything else besides a penalty double.) In other auctions, a hesitation clearly suggests bidding on, e.g. 1H 2D 2H 3D ...pass the last hesitation is, IMHO, unlikely to be thinking about whether to penalize the opponents; so it suggests that bidding on would be better than passing. But I simply don't think it's possible in the given auction to suggest that "action" would be better than passing, when "action" includes both a penalty double and bidding on. Suppose, instead of a hesitation, partner made his UI explicit: "Partner, I'm going to pass, but I think this is a hand whether either a penalty double or a save, whichever you think is right, would work better than passing." Is there such a hand that could cause partner to make such a statement? I seriously doubt it. That's why I can't accept the existence of UI that suggests "action over inaction". Not when the possible "actions" go in starkly different directions. Of course, in some experienced partnerships, such a hesitation may suggest doubling over passing, or it may suggest bidding on over passing; although we can't tell which from the auction alone, some partners would "just know" which one their partners are thinking about. Also, it might be possible to argue that although the UI may not have demonstrably suggested saving, West obviously thought it did (why else would he have bid on with a flat hand and nothing he hadn't already shown?), so perhaps we have enough evidence to convict West anyway. (I don't know if the Laws technically permit us to use this type of argument, but I don't think it would be "unjust" to rule against West.) But I think it's wrong to argue simply that a hesitation suggests "action over inaction" in a case like this. It doesn't make sense to me. -- 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 Oct 24 02:16:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9NGGV712856 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 02:16:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9NGGOt12852 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 02:16:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA24208; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 09:16:15 -0700 Message-Id: <200010231616.JAA24208@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: [BLML] Withdrawn call? Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 09:16:15 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I think this subject has come up before, but I don't remember what the conclusion was. North East South West 1D 3C X After South's double, West wakes up and remembers that 3C is conventional in their system, showing four hearts and longer clubs. After being given the correct explanation, South decides that double is still his choice. (1) Is South's first double considered to be withdrawn? (2) If not, is the fact that South had a hand that wanted to make a negative double of a normal 1D-3C auction still AI to N-S and UI to E-W; and if so, what Law says so, since L16C wouldn't apply? -- 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 Tue Oct 24 02:43:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9NGhEO12900 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 02:43:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9NGh8t12896 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 02:43:09 +1000 (EST) Received: by esebh02nok with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 19:43:04 +0300 Message-ID: From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 19:36:30 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > This is a very close call, and since this is the BLML and > not the ACML, that should sum it up. What is ACML? American Contract Mailing List? :) Konrad Ciborowski (with A. L. Edwards on this one) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 24 02:58:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9NGvpe12914 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 02:57:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.211.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e9NGvit12910 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 02:57:44 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 89898 invoked for bounce); 23 Oct 2000 16:57:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.58.119) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 23 Oct 2000 16:57:39 -0000 Message-ID: <020b01c03d12$a1adc700$ee291dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <022001c03b7a$60028280$7ad736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <002e01c03b9e$c580d480$273b1dc2@rabbit> <010c01c03cc2$77aca8e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 18:58:50 +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 "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > If we determine that the UI > > suggests one LA over another then we should be prepared to > > demonstrate that that is what it suggests. > > LA = logical alternative. > Alternative to what? This use of LA is confusing. > > The bid was 6S. Was that bid > demonstrably suggested to West by the hesitation? > No, end. Yes, continue. Were there > any logical alternatives to the bid of 6S? > No, end. Yes, adjust. You forgot to check whether there was damage. 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 Oct 24 03:03:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9NH3Uh12941 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 03:03:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9NH3Ot12937 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 03:03:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcaug6j.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.64.211]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA02894 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:03:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <009601c03d13$0af6e700$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "BLML" References: <200010220406.AAA18657@freenet10.carleton.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:02:36 -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: "A. L. Edwards" To: Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 12:06 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces > > > >At 2:17 AM +1000 10/22/00, Peter Gill wrote: > >>Any opinions? > > > >Point of personal privilege: I am of the strong opinion that bidding > >diagrams should begin with West. > I would also like the bidding to the immediate right of the > diagram, as per the example given in the style guide of RGB. > > Back to bridge: > Is there UI? Yes, a "clear" hesitation. A sematic point. A hesitation is not UI. Inferences about partner's hand that can be derived from a hesitation are UI. A hesitation that is completely uninformative is not UI. IMO, this distinction helps us get away from the "if it hesitates, shoot it" mentality and guides us to looking at the information that was actually passed. > Are there logical alternatives? Yes; pass, 6S, X readily come to mind. > Does the UI demonstrably suggest one alternative over another? I would > argue yes, the one being action over inaction. "Action" and "inaction" are not bridge actions, hence not logical alternatives (IMO, and yes I am aware that there are other viewpoints). The logical alternatives are pass, double, and 6S. When a LA is selected, the questions have to be: What information did the hesitation give partner about the hesitator's hand? Did that information suggest that one or more of the LA'a would be demonstrably more successful than another LA? >Pass is hardly forcing; > nor does it matter that West guessed wrong (but, as it happens, got > lucky). I think the hesitation demonstrably suggested that doing > something would be better than doing nothing, that pass is an LA, and > so the result should be rolled back like the director ruled. > Now for L12C3: I see no reason to determine a % for 6H making/not making. > I would give the benefit of the doubt to the declarer and give him the > whole thing. > Tony (aka ac342) > > ps please note: I am from the ACBL where 1) we may be harsher than > most in hesitation/UI problems and 2) we do not use L12C3. :-) > -- Rich Colker has been arguing (in his columns in the Washington Bridge League Bulletin) that views on hesitations are in need of change. My apologies if I am misrepresentating his position by oversimplifying, but he feels that in complex auctions, particularly slam-going ones, a player should be given sufficient amount of time to analyze unexpected developments. A hesistation in this kind of situation simply conveys that the player who breaks tempo (not a long trance) may simply need the time to analyze developments, and that hesitation rulings need enough flexibility to allow this without penalty. Here, a player has made a takeout double, heard his partner respond freely at the three level, and now faces his second turn at the six-level. What is the likelihood that he has run into this situation enough to be able to make any call without some sort of break in tempo? Does the hesitation reveal any more information than that partner needed time to digest this unexpected leap into slam? (IMO, the hesitation suggests defensive values. I would likely want to adjust if W found a double, E left it in, and the contract failed. If I'm going to want to adjust if W doubles, how can I adjust when W takes a save? The UI cannot demonstrably suggest both. Score stands). 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 Oct 24 03:08:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9NH82i12953 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 03:08:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9NH7ut12949 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 03:07:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4iu.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.18.94]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA26269; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:07:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001a01c03d14$61d58f80$5e12f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Peter Clinch" , "Peter Gill" , "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:12:08 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Welcome Peter...hope this is not your last post :-)) But you left out something vital. How many dogs and cats do you have? We shall all be awaiting your response, plus what else you may tell us about yourself so we can greet our new friend. Craig -----Original Message----- From: Peter Clinch >> Phoenix, Arizona. >> >> P.S. My first post to this forum. Treat me gently. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 24 03:36:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9NHXl213011 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 03:33:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9NHXft13007 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 03:33:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcaug6j.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.64.211]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA01236 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:33:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00ad01c03d17$4699ca80$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <200010231616.JAA24208@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Withdrawn call? Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:32:41 -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: Monday, October 23, 2000 12:16 PM Subject: [BLML] Withdrawn call? > > I think this subject has come up before, but I don't remember what the > conclusion was. > > North East South West > 1D 3C X > > After South's double, West wakes up and remembers that 3C is > conventional in their system, showing four hearts and longer clubs. > After being given the correct explanation, South decides that double > is still his choice. > > (1) Is South's first double considered to be withdrawn? > I wouldn't think so. S has not made a change of call (see 21B). OTOH, ruling that the double had been withdrawn and replaced by another double with a different meaning would make the ruling simpler, as it would then be absolutely clear that 16C1 applied. > (2) If not, is the fact that South had a hand that wanted to make a > negative double of a normal 1D-3C auction still AI to N-S and UI > to E-W; and if so, what Law says so, since L16C wouldn't apply? > > -- thanks, Adam See 21B1/16C1. For the NOS, all inferences from a withdrawn call are AI. Since the inferences of the negative double of the normal auction would still be AI if S had made a change of call, I think it's safe to say that they are still AI if S lets his call stand. Another way of looking at it is that the information that S wanted to make a negative double of a normal 1D-3C auction was available to N through legal calls, as defined in the heading of L16. Although the meaning of the double changed due to a delayed explanation by an opponent, the first meaning was transmitted legitimately, and remains AI. 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 Oct 24 04:02:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9NI0RF13060 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 04:00:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9NI0Kt13056 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 04:00:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from Panther1204.eiu.edu (Panther1204.eiu.edu [139.67.12.189]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA17007 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:08:41 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001023125722.007bd100@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 12:57:22 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces In-Reply-To: <200010231540.IAA23684@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 08:40 AM 10/23/2000 PDT, Adam Beneschan wrote: [enormous snip of well-written stuff] >But I simply don't think it's possible in the given auction to suggest >that "action" would be better than passing, when "action" includes >both a penalty double and bidding on. Suppose, instead of a >hesitation, partner made his UI explicit: "Partner, I'm going to pass, >but I think this is a hand whether either a penalty double or a save, >whichever you think is right, would work better than passing." Is >there such a hand that could cause partner to make such a statement? >I seriously doubt it. That's why I can't accept the existence of UI >that suggests "action over inaction". Not when the possible "actions" >go in starkly different directions. OK, let us imagine that partner instead announces "I have a hand that indicates that there is a very good chance that a call other than pass will work right now, but I am going to Pass, anyway. I will not tell you whether it is 6S or X that I am considering, but I will assure you that I am not at all sure that Pass is the right thing to do." You now look at your hand, guess which call he was considering making, and then make that call yourself. There is a serious possibility that, had your partner said nothing but "Pass", you would have chosen "Pass" as your own call. It turns out that the call you chose may well have worked out better than Pass. Don't you think the opponents are entitled to redress? There are three alternatives: 6S, X, and Pass. The UI clearly indicates that partner has reason to believe that Pass is not the best of the alternatives, contradicting the AI that suggests that he thinks it is best. How can you condone bidding either 6S or X under those circumstances? >Of course, in some experienced partnerships, such a hesitation may >suggest doubling over passing, or it may suggest bidding on over >passing; although we can't tell which from the auction alone, some >partners would "just know" which one their partners are thinking >about. Also, it might be possible to argue that although the UI may [I would with my regular partner, FWIW, but this is probably irrelevant in the actual case.] >not have demonstrably suggested saving, West obviously thought it did >(why else would he have bid on with a flat hand and nothing he hadn't >already shown?), so perhaps we have enough evidence to convict West >anyway. (I don't know if the Laws technically permit us to use this >type of argument, but I don't think it would be "unjust" to rule >against West.) But I think it's wrong to argue simply that a L73C. When a player has UI he must _carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side_. I roll back either 6S or X if they work better than Pass. I do not roll back 'Pass'. {Unless the player really can convince me that he was trying his best to work counter to the UI.} >hesitation suggests "action over inaction" in a case like this. It >doesn't make sense to me. I did what I could. :) > -- Adam Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 24 05:46:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9NJjmT13154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 05:45:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9NJjft13150 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 05:45:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.179.58] (helo=D457300) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13nnXL-0003gy-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 20:45:36 +0100 Message-ID: <000f01c03d29$a37b63a0$3ab301d5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200010231540.IAA23684@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 20:44:18 +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 > Teams > Dlr S, NS Vul. > -- > KT954 > Q92 > KT742 > KQ75 J9863 > 76 Q2 > 853 A4 > QJ98 A653 > AT42 > AJ83 > KJT76 > -- > > North East South West > 1D P > 1H X 3H 3S > 6H ...P P 6S > P P X All Pass It has always seemed to me that in order for a player to be in breach of the Laws forbidding him to base his action on unauthorised information, it needs to be shown that he has received some information. The simple question one asks is: would the player have taken the action he did take if had known what his partner's hand was? If he certainly would not, then his action cannot be said to have been based on any information at all about his partner's hand. And, if it was not based on any information at all, then it was (ipso facto) not based on any unauthorised information. Well, if West knew that his partner had two aces and the doubleton queen of hearts, would he have bid six spades? I do not think for a moment that he would. Therefore, his bid of six spades was not suggested by any information at all about his partner's hand, and cannot therefore be said to have been suggested by any unauthorised information about it. There is no reason to adjust the score here, for there has not been an infraction. 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 Oct 24 05:55:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9NJtKa13171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 05:55:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9NJtEt13167 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 05:55:14 +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 e9NJtAj69553 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 15:55:10 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20001023155228.00b10100@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, 23 Oct 2000 15:53:45 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Misposted again, d---it! Must be all those messages about having major-domo help us not do it. Sorry for the double post, Marv. >At 03:25 AM 10/23/00, Marvin wrote: > >>Adam Wildavsky wrote: >> >> > First of all I don't agree with your approach. We should not start by >> > examining the call chosen by the player in possession of UI. Rather >> > we should consider what the UI suggests. >> >>What the UI demonstrably suggests to West, not to you or me. > >Let's be careful here. The UI might reasonably suggest something >different to West than it does to Marv or to me. But wasn't that >precisely the presumed flaw in the wording of L16 prior to >1997? Wasn't the whole point of "demonstrably" to prevent us from >being allowed to infer nature of the suggestion from the action >taken? I'd say that the whole point of "demonstrably" is that we now >must consider what the UI would suggest to us -- Marv, me, the AC, a >consensus of the player's peers, whoever -- rather than assume that it >might reasonably have suggested whatever the winning action might have >been to the player who took 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 Oct 24 07:01:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9NL0Hj13279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 07:00:17 +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 e9NL08t13275 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 07:00:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.196] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13nogI-000GbO-00; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 21:58:56 +0100 Message-ID: <002301c03d34$4d59d320$c45608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Steve Willner" , "David Stevenson" Cc: "Bill Schoder" , "Antonio Riccardi" , "Richard Grenside" , "Max Bavin" , "bridge-laws" References: <39C08689.731E@dksin.dk><20000914044706.27000.00000558@ng-cm1.aol.com><8pqdiv$7dk$1@netox20.alcatel.no> <39e203be.0@cfanews.harvard.edu> <003c01c0352a$35930520$e85293c3@pacific> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: couple laws questions Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 21:59:39 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "Justice must not only be seen to be done but has to be seen to be believed." (Beachcomber) ==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+== ----- Original Message ----- From: Grattan Endicott To: Steve Willner ; David Stevenson Cc: Bill Schoder ; Antonio Riccardi ; 'Grattan Endicott' ; Richard Grenside ; Max Bavin ; bridge-laws Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 4:21 PM Subject: [BLML] Re: couple laws questions > ----- Original Message ----- > From: David Stevenson > To: Steve Willner > Cc: ; Grattan Endicott > Sent: 10 October 2000 11:10 > Subject: Re: couple laws questions > > +=+ Going through the abundance of emails > received this month, and not yet read, I found the > above. I have taken the time to dig back into my > papers for 1985. The first full draft of the 'New > Laws' was forwarded, with annotation, from the > WBF to the EBL for its reactions. > Concerning Law 65 the WBF drew the > EBL's attention to the fact that "we remove the > right to ask another player to turn his quitted > cards correctly". The WBF intention, therefore, is > that once the card is 'quitted' another player may > not ask for it to be turned correctly. Now all we > need know is whether definitions of 'quitted' vary. > A response committee was set up by the EBL > (Franklin, Endicott, Bakke, Klaczak, Sandsmark, > Besse, Erdenbaum, Madsen, Gerontopoulos, > and Hallen). Of Law 65E it remarked: > "The committee by majority agrees to the > change in 65E, but wonders whether it should not > be more explicitly expressed." > Ah! indeed! ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > +=+ My law-making friends have not expressed a view about 'quitted'. I will just say that it is evidently something about which NBOs should give guidance in the absence of a Voice from Above. My interim thought is that, whilst I think it is likely that the drafters were thinking of the Law 45G point at which the card is turned over, I could be confident that, if not sooner, the card is 'quitted' by the time the player ceases to have the entitlement given in Law 66B. ~ Grattan ~ 23 Oct 2000 +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 24 07:25:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9NLOjD13314 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 07:24:45 +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 e9NLOct13310 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 07:24:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.176] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13np59-000H9t-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 22:24:35 +0100 Message-ID: <005701c03d37$e2bce620$c45608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200010231540.IAA23684@mailhub.irvine.com> <000f01c03d29$a37b63a0$3ab301d5@D457300> Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 22:25:20 +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 "Justice must not only be seen to be done but has to be seen to be believed." (Beachcomber) ==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+== ----- Original Message ----- From: David Burn To: Sent: Monday, October 23, 2000 8:44 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces > > It has always seemed to me that in order for a player to be in breach of > the Laws forbidding him to base his action on unauthorised information, > it needs to be shown that he has received some information. The simple > question one asks is: would the player have taken the action he did take > if had known what his partner's hand was? If he certainly would not, > then his action cannot be said to have been based on any information at > all about his partner's hand. And, if it was not based on any > information at all, then it was (ipso facto) not based on any > unauthorised information. > > Well, if West knew that his partner had two aces and the doubleton queen > of hearts, would he have bid six spades? I do not think for a moment > that he would. Therefore, his bid of six spades was not suggested by any > information at all about his partner's hand, and cannot therefore be > said to have been suggested by any unauthorised information about it. > There is no reason to adjust the score here, for there has not been an > infraction. > +=+ I am not really convinced by this, David. It seems to me that, unless East's Pass is shown to be forcing, his hesitation indicates clearly enough that he was considering action other than a pass. In that case West does have some UI, discouraging a pass at least. The fact that he then chooses the wrong action, or the right action for the wrong reasons, is not evidence, I would suggest, that he has carefully avoided taking any advantage that might accrue to his side. ~ 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 Oct 24 07:32:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9NLW8r13334 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 07:32:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.a2000.nl (duck.a2000.nl [62.108.1.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9NLW2t13330 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 07:32:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp2.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 13npCI-0001BL-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 23:31:58 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20001023233152.01005fa0@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 23:31:52 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: [BLML] Withdrawn call? In-Reply-To: <200010231616.JAA24208@mailhub.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:16 AM 10/23/2000 PDT, you wrote: > >I think this subject has come up before, but I don't remember what the >conclusion was. > > North East South West > 1D 3C X > >After South's double, West wakes up and remembers that 3C is >conventional in their system, showing four hearts and longer clubs. >After being given the correct explanation, South decides that double >is still his choice. > >(1) Is South's first double considered to be withdrawn? yes, see 21 b1. S may retract his call after his bidding but before the alert, until his partner has made a call. He now retracts his bid and replaces it with (again, nut now with perhaps different meaning) a D. > >(2) If not, is the fact that South had a hand that wanted to make a > negative double of a normal 1D-3C auction still AI to N-S and UI > to E-W; and if so, what Law says so, since L16C wouldn't apply? > > -- 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/ > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 24 07:34:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9NLYgr13349 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 07:34:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9NLYct13345 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 07:34:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot23.domain2.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id da231741 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 07:34:37 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-211-38.tmns.net.au ([203.54.211.38]) by mail2.bigpond.com (Claudes-Earthy-MailRouter V2.9c 3/8927590); 24 Oct 2000 07:34:35 Message-ID: <02cd01c03d41$5aac8c40$87d436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 08:34:05 +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: >I would like a word with West to find out if he tried to >work through this step and help clarify his UI obligations. He replies that he'd never heard of UI at the time. All he thought was that if partner hesitates, he should simply make the bid he would have made without partner's hesitation, so he bid 6S without paying any attention to the hesitation. He adds that he now knows all about UI and "sort of" understands how the Laws really work, because the Director has explained it all to him when he asked whether he should appeal. The process of appealing is quite new to him. Grattan Endicott wrote: >>The major problem with the Two Aces case is the >>reason EW are said to have given for appealing. >>If that is the whole case their appeal will not get >>off the ground. Their case is badly presented because they do not know enough about the relevant Laws to present their case well. Under these circumstances, it's OK for the AC to work out what their case really is, isn't it? Or should the Director help them fill in the Appeals Form? Or someone else help them? Are there regions which have Appeals Consultants available to help inexperienced appellants complete the form sensibly? Hirsch Davis wrote: >>Does the hesitation reveal any more information than that >>partner needed time to digest this unexpected leap into slam? I think that's what EW meant by "East's long trance was understandable" - that the 6H bid took East by surprise and it took him almost a minute to work out not to double with his two aces because the 6H bidder probably had a void. 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 Oct 24 07:48:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9NLm0C13388 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 07:48:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9NLlst13384 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 07:47:55 +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 RAA14713 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 17:47:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA10228 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 17:47:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 17:47:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200010232147.RAA10228@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: couple laws questions X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" >... by the time the player ceases > to have the entitlement given in Law 66B. An interesting anomaly in L66B, now that you draw attention to it. Usually a player loses rights only after his own side's action, but here an opponent's action makes it too late. Another race? You see your opponent reaching for his last card and quickly put your own lead on the table? (Of course this is likely to be useful only if it was your turn to lead!) Is this possibly worth an entry in your overflowing notebook? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 24 11:26:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9O1PjV13613 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 11:25:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9O1Pdt13609 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 11:25:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 18:22:59 -0700 Message-ID: <005701c03d59$295390e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200010231540.IAA23684@mailhub.irvine.com> <000f01c03d29$a37b63a0$3ab301d5@D457300> Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 18:24:28 -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 David Burn wrote: > It has always seemed to me that in order for a player to be in breach of > the Laws forbidding him to base his action on unauthorised information, > it needs to be shown that he has received some information. The simple > question one asks is: would the player have taken the action he did take > if had known what his partner's hand was? > If he certainly would not, > then his action cannot be said to have been based on any information at > all about his partner's hand. And, if it was not based on any > information at all, then it was (ipso facto) not based on any > unauthorised information. If a player misinterprets the UI sent by partner, then takes an action based on what is demonstrably suggested by that misinterpretation when there is a logical alternative, and the action damages the opponents, then the opponents are due redress. I thought this principle was established and accepted long ago. Example: A player hesitates because s/he wanted to bid, then passes, and hir hand is not a doubling sort of hand. Hir partner thinks a double was being considered, and doubles without a doubling sort of hand. Thanks to extraordinarily good luck and some unskillful play by declarer, the contract is defeated. There was damage, redress is due. 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 Tue Oct 24 12:17:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9O2HZM13680 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 12:17:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from phnxpop4.phnx.uswest.net (phnxpop4.phnx.uswest.net [206.80.192.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e9O2HTt13676 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 12:17:29 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 65651 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2000 02:17:25 -0000 Delivered-To: fixup-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au@fixme Received: (qmail 65635 invoked by uid 0); 24 Oct 2000 02:17:24 -0000 Received: from vdsl-130-13-82-214.phnx.uswest.net (HELO uswest.net) (130.13.82.214) by phnxpop4.phnx.uswest.net with SMTP; 24 Oct 2000 02:17:24 -0000 Message-ID: <39F4F121.F8499EB3@uswest.net> Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 19:17:05 -0700 From: Peter Clinch X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Gill CC: BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces References: <022001c03b7a$60028280$7ad736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Someone (I think Grattan Endicott) suggested earlier in this string that EW should be quizzed over whether the pass of six hearts was forcing. That does not strike me as the right part of the auction to question, since most mortal beings haven't discussed this sequence. Any putative "agreement" here would be tough to prove. On the other hand, I would like to understand the EW agreements about the initial double. Does this imply exaggerated length in the unbid suits, or can this be shown by other means (e.g. 1NT or 2NT )? Is it generally constructive or obstructive? These are items most partnerships might have discussed, and form the only AI that emanates from the E side of the table. West's first bid (3S) would seem to hold constructive intent, or to offer East a chance to clarify hand-type later. In this context the 6S bid is inconsistent, and appears (to me) strongly to be based on an inference regarding the hesitation. If EW could persuade me that the initial double always shows extreme distribution, then 6S might be allowable. As it is West's hand is still a flat, albeit upgradable, eight count. Incidentally, EW's argument that the light dawned on East that North must have a void somewhere to bid 6H strikes me as wholly irrelevant and ill-advised as an argument- not least because 6H is makeable because of South's void in an ace-cashing unbid suit, not North's. Peter Clinch Phoenix, Arizona (no dogs, Nankipoos verboten). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 24 18:10:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9O89rL13909 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 18:09:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9O89ht13902 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 18:09:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.232] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13nz9Q-000Njz-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 09:09:40 +0100 Message-ID: <003601c03d92$01037fe0$e85408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: <022001c03b7a$60028280$7ad736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <39F4F121.F8499EB3@uswest.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 09:09:59 +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 "Justice must not only be seen to be done but has to be seen to be believed." (Beachcomber) ==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+== ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Clinch To: Peter Gill Cc: BLML Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 3:17 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces > Someone (I think Grattan Endicott) suggested > earlier in this string that EW should be quizzed > over whether the pass of six hearts was forcing. > That does not strike me as the right part of the > auction to question, since most mortal beings > haven't discussed this sequence. Any putative > "agreement" here would be tough to prove. > +=+ Yes, so it would. That does not remove the duty of a diligent AC to address the question. There may be a system file, for example. They may be playing the methods advocated in some erudite publication, if they have evidence of them. We must never impose upon a pair our own concept of method in place of their own demonstrated agreements; we can be sceptical of mere assertions. (Mind you, I am aware that here the pair did not apparently claim the position to be forcing, amongst all the other elements of an appeal that were missing, but under pressure in an appeal hearing players, especially inexperienced or diffident players, do easily forget to mention a significant 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 Tue Oct 24 18:10:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9O89r613910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 18:09:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9O89ht13901 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 18:09:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.232] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13nz9P-000Njz-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 09:09:39 +0100 Message-ID: <003501c03d92$00433d20$e85408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: <02cd01c03d41$5aac8c40$87d436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 08:52:03 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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 "Justice must not only be seen to be done but has to be seen to be believed." (Beachcomber) ==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+== ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Gill To: BLML Sent: Monday, October 23, 2000 11:34 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces > > Hirsch Davis wrote: > >>Does the hesitation reveal any more information than that > >>partner needed time to digest this unexpected leap into slam? > > I think that's what EW meant by "East's long trance was > understandable" - that the 6H bid took East by surprise and > it took him almost a minute to work out not to double with > his two aces because the 6H bidder probably had a void. > > Peter Gill > Australia. > +=+ Indeed? Do we then judge that West is capable of recognizing that East has some such problem? If so, does it detract at all from the general circumstance that if West has UI the least suggested action is Pass, if Pass is a LA? ~ 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 Oct 24 19:20:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9O9Ji014008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 19:19:44 +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 e9O9Jbt14004 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 19:19:38 +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 LAA29012; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 11:17:42 +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 LAA23112; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 11:19:24 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001024113001.008d9ca0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 11:30:01 +0200 To: Adam Beneschan , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Withdrawn call? In-Reply-To: <200010231616.JAA24208@mailhub.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:16 23/10/00 PDT, you wrote: > >I think this subject has come up before, but I don't remember what the >conclusion was. > > North East South West > 1D 3C X > >After South's double, West wakes up and remembers that 3C is >conventional in their system, showing four hearts and longer clubs. >After being given the correct explanation, South decides that double >is still his choice. > >(1) Is South's first double considered to be withdrawn? > >(2) If not, is the fact that South had a hand that wanted to make a > negative double of a normal 1D-3C auction still AI to N-S and UI > to E-W; and if so, what Law says so, since L16C wouldn't apply? AG : it could be UI, but it is highly probable that it would be irrelevant here : the difference between the double of a (purely natural) 3C bid and a (natural but more precise) 3C bid shouldn't be a large chunk of UI. I'd say that, when both auctions are very different (ie 3C was H+S), 16C should apply : some sort of (possibly conventional) double is legally withdrawn and replaced by another (possibly conventional) declaration, which incidentally is a double. What if not ? You could still use 16B, if needed, and adjust the score, if it appears that E/W used UI. The list of occurrences when 16B applies isn't exhaustive. Regards, A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 24 22:21:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9OCI3B14217 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 22:18:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9OCHtt14213 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 22:17:56 +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 e9OCHpG45890 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 08:17:52 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20001024075453.00b17ed0@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, 24 Oct 2000 08:15:49 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces In-Reply-To: <005701c03d59$295390e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> References: <200010231540.IAA23684@mailhub.irvine.com> <000f01c03d29$a37b63a0$3ab301d5@D457300> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:24 PM 10/23/00, Marvin wrote: >If a player misinterprets the UI sent by partner, then takes an action >based on what is demonstrably suggested by that misinterpretation when >there is a logical alternative, and the action damages the opponents, >then the opponents are due redress. > >I thought this principle was established and accepted long ago. My impression is that the principle was established and accepted by the ACBL, prior to the 1997 revision of the laws. I don't think it continues in force; I believe it was specifically (and intentionally) precluded by the change to "demonstrably". >Example: A player hesitates because s/he wanted to bid, then passes, and >hir hand is not a doubling sort of hand. Hir partner thinks a double was >being considered, and doubles without a doubling sort of hand. Thanks to >extraordinarily good luck and some unskillful play by declarer, the >contract is defeated. There was damage, redress is due. Not every occurence of damage entitles a side to redress. Partner may have doubled without an appropriate holding, but unless the double was "demonstrably suggested", we have no grounds for adjustment. (If we believe that the doubler was intentionally attempting to gain advantage from the UI he thought he had, in violation of L73C, we may/should chastise him with a C&E penalty, but that's another issue.) Several people have pointed out the the hesitation over 6H suggests that either 6S or X will be better than passing -- but it also suggests that either 6S or X will be worse than passing. One is a "winning" action; the other a "losing" action, in the sense that it will increase or reduce the side's expected score at the time the action is taken. Even if you believe that the law provides redress in the event of the hesitator's partner taking the winning action -- and I'm not sure I do -- surely it doesn't intend to provide opportunity for redress when he takes the losing action, i.e. the action that he would have been expected to take had he interpreted his partner's huddle correctly and "bent over backwards" to be ethical in fulfilling his obligations under L16A. Adjusting the score in Marv's example would be the purest form of "if it hesitates shoot it". It could only be based on the notion that if there is a tempo break, and the "infracting" side winds up with a good score, even by the most unlikely of luck-outs, we should take it away. 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 Oct 24 23:49:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9ODmKF14371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 23:48:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9ODmEt14367 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 23:48:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcauhc7.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.69.135]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA00610 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 09:48:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <002901c03dc0$ecfd1cc0$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "BLML" References: <200010231540.IAA23684@mailhub.irvine.com> <000f01c03d29$a37b63a0$3ab301d5@D457300> <005701c03d59$295390e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 09:47:17 -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: "Marvin L. French" To: Sent: Monday, October 23, 2000 9:24 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces > > If a player misinterprets the UI sent by partner, then takes an action > based on what is demonstrably suggested by that misinterpretation when > there is a logical alternative, and the action damages the opponents, > then the opponents are due redress. > > I thought this principle was established and accepted long ago. > I really hope you are wrong in this. > Example: A player hesitates because s/he wanted to bid, then passes, and > hir hand is not a doubling sort of hand. Hir partner thinks a double was > being considered, and doubles without a doubling sort of hand. Thanks to > extraordinarily good luck and some unskillful play by declarer, the > contract is defeated. There was damage, redress is due. > > Marv > mlfrench@writeme.com > ?? What exactly is the infraction for which you are proposing an adjustment? Check me to see if I have this right. There is UI. The UI suggests that option A will be more successful than option B. The player selects option B. If an ethical law-abiding player took this course of action, that would be the end of it. However, you are saying that if our player misinterpreted the UI, so that this player believed that option B was suggested, and that player now takes option B, the opponents are due redress? I agree that the player who takes this action needs a lecture on UI (if we even find out about this), and bears watching in the future. However, it's hard to see how we can penalize one player, when the bridge action taken is exactly the same legal one that would be taken by a law-abiding ethical player. IMO the Laws require that we penalize illegal actions, not impure motivation or bad bridge judgement. 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 Oct 25 01:42:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9OFfm614528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 01:41:48 +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-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 e9OFfVt14515 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 01:41:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13o6Cd-000Bps-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 16:41:28 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 15:43:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces References: <200010220406.AAA18657@freenet10.carleton.ca> <009601c03d13$0af6e700$0200000a@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <009601c03d13$0af6e700$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: >From: "A. L. Edwards" >> >At 2:17 AM +1000 10/22/00, Peter Gill wrote: >> >Point of personal privilege: I am of the strong opinion that >bidding >> >diagrams should begin with West. Please. It seems the generally accepted standard, and is mentioned in the RGB style-guide and Richard Pavlicek's style-guide, and is used in international appeals reporting. >> Is there UI? Yes, a "clear" hesitation. >A sematic point. A hesitation is not UI. Inferences about partner's >hand that can be derived from a hesitation are UI. A hesitation that >is completely uninformative is not UI. IMO, this distinction helps us >get away from the "if it hesitates, shoot it" mentality and guides us >to looking at the information that was actually passed. While true, the effect is much the same. A hesitation suggests doubt: knowledge of partner's doubt is UI. It is normally a shortcut to say that a hesitation "is" UI since it just about always creates UI. -- 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 Oct 25 01:42:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9OFfgc14526 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 01:41:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9OFfRt14504 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 01:41:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13o6CY-000Bpr-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 16:41:24 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 13:22:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Hammurabi References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard wrote: >If the Portland Club had exclusive responsibility for the Laws of Bridge, >and you were its owner, what changes to TFLB would you make? I would get rid of duplicate bridge entirely. :) -- 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 Oct 25 01:42:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9OFfvG14534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 01:41:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9OFfTt14510 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 01:41:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13o6CY-000Bpt-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 16:41:23 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 13:14:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] [TO ADMIN] The "Reply" key References: <01cf01c03ab2$6e4fff20$74d436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <01cf01c03ab2$6e4fff20$74d436cb@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: >Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >> This is something that happens to all BLMLers from time >>to time. The reason is that the "Reply" option on BLML puts >>the _sender's_ address in the "To" field. This is unfortunate. >>The natural behavior would be to put the >>"bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au" address in the to field. Now >>to reply to the list you have to choose "Reply to All" and >>then remove all the addresses but one from the "To" field. >> This could easily be fixed if the administrator changes the >>"Reply-To" option on the list server. I think such a change >>would be welcome. Anyone with me on this one? > > >Me. If it can easily be done, it would be most helpful. My software is excellent, so I never have the problems outlined. Of course, I have no idea how the software works. I do not know what the alternative suggested will do to my software. So long as the answer is nothing, ie that it will work as before, I have no problem. If the list fails to operate as a newsgroup in future, then I would be seriously discommoded. -- 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 Oct 25 01:42:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9OFfmA14529 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 01:41:48 +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-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 e9OFfVt14514 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 01:41:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13o6Cb-000Bpp-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 16:41:28 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 15:38:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces References: <022001c03b7a$60028280$7ad736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <39F360FC.7C23F5C5@uswest.net> In-Reply-To: <39F360FC.7C23F5C5@uswest.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Clinch wrote: >P.S. My first post to this forum. Treat me gently. Aaaaaagggghhhhhhhh !!!!!!!! Clinch!!!! Oh, hi, Peter, nice to see you. Got any cats? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 25 01:42:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9OFffK14525 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 01:41:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9OFfPt14502 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 01:41:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13o6CT-000Bps-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 16:41:18 +0100 Message-ID: <5wJ$thAMOO95EwQw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 02:19:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. References: <000c01c039f7$e26d67a0$bad936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <000c01c039f7$e26d67a0$bad936cb@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: >Well done. I slipped up earlier in the thread, misreading >substitution as substitute when I first replied to this thread. >I wonder if anyone else did too. I presume that I am now >a fully qualified member of BLML who has met all the >necessary initiation rituals. No, I read it as substitutions, ie the replacement of one player with another. [s] >The last five words of your paragraph seem a bit weird >to me. Here in NSW, the Director authorises substitutes >(or substitutions if you prefer, I do seem to have difficulty >telling one from another) in accordance with the >Tournament Regulations rather than, as you suggest, in >accordance with the Laws. I think this was part of DWS's >original point (perhaps not stated explicitly, but possibly >implied): that the Director should be looking at the T Regs >(or CoC) more so than the Laws when forced to make >decisions about the structure of the tournament. My problem with this thread is that while, *of course*, the TD should use any regs or CoC handed down by the SO, in this case there were no relevant regs or CoC. The EBU white book deals with emergency substitutions, but does not tell you what to do with replacing one team member with another. Now, people have argued that a CoC that allows a change during a session would be illegal. I still do not see why. Law 4 does not make it illegal **so long as the word substitution is used with its normal sense in the English language**. Thus, the TD was faced with a situation that the CoC did not cover, the regs did not cover, and the Laws did not tell him what to do. He did not have a representative of the SO to help him decide as far as I am aware. I know that there is a suggestion that the TD should not do anything because to do so is usurping someone else's authority: fortunately few TDs are as silly as that, and when they reach a position where they have to make a decision, they make it, and the TD at the time did. >Since Law 8C defines the "end of session" as: >[at the end of the last round of the session] "for each table >when play of all boards scheduled at that table has been >completed, and when all scores have been entered >on the proper scoring forms without objection", That is only a definition of when a session ends with respect to the play of the board. It does not define when the session ends as to which board. >is it OK for the SO to be defining the same term? Yes, the Laws require them to do so - see the Definitions and L80C. >Is this more like L80F than L80E? Is it OK? >Which definition should prevail? The one in the Laws >or the EBU one? Or have I misuinderstood? Well, the EBU one is defined for a different Law book, and the one in the Laws is only relative to the board. Neither is really adequate. [s] >Because the word "substitution" in Law 4 is not defined, >its meaning should not be assumed, and especially should >not be assumed to be a meaning which is at odds with the >dictionary definition of the word. Trivial enough? In fact, I would assume it does mean what the English language says. >Didn't I also write earlier in this thread something like >(no offence intended to Shakespeare): >"much ado about nothing" I do not think it is "much ado about nothing" when some people's views will hamstring SOs and other people's views will not. It is important to get it sorted out. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 25 01:42:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9OFflU14527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 01:41:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 e9OFfQt14503 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 01:41:31 +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 13o6CT-000Bpr-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 16:41:20 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 01:58:40 +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: <3.0.1.32.20001011215632.0121528c@pop.mindspring.com> <015d01c03397$05a74360$71b6f1c3@kooijman> <3.0.1.32.20001011215632.0121528c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001013163335.01218750@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001015133232.01226064@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001017204430.01223ef4@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001018180123.01225184@pop.mindspring.com> <39EEECDE.C01031D8@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <39EEECDE.C01031D8@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: >What I cannot live with is a ruling where no penalty tricks >at all are awarded. That is simply not within the words of >the Laws, and certainly not in the spirit. While I agree about the wording of the Laws, as far as the spirit goes I think Mike's argument is that the spirit of the Laws is irrelevant, and that he has no interest in following the spirit of the Laws. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 25 02:04:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9OG4Ix14602 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 02:04:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe31.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9OG4Ct14598 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 02:04:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 09:04:05 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [205.208.128.179] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <022001c03b7a$60028280$7ad736cb@gillp.bigpond.com><002e01c03b9e$c580d480$273b1dc2@rabbit> Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 11:03:43 -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: 24 Oct 2000 16:04:05.0110 (UTC) FILETIME=[087C5160:01C03DD4] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Adam Wildavsky To: Roger Pewick Cc: blml Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 11:19 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces | At 4:37 PM -0500 10/22/00, Roger Pewick wrote: | >Consider responder's perspective. Partner has made a TO double and has | >not supported except by his double, while he has a chunky hand with a | >KQ,. The indicated action is to pass or double since there is a | >likelihood that 6H can be defeated on power. The explanation for | >responder choosing a less than indicated action suggests his call was | >influenced by the tempo more than the AI. Why would it have been | >influenced? Most likely by an inference that partner has extra length | >in spades. And presuming that he has extra length he probably would | >have overcalled if he had the ace. So the other side has the S ace and | >now the KQ are worthless on defense. | > | >Would this be considered as demonstrably suggested over pass? | | I remain unconvinced. Consider the information from the auction had east passed after ten seconds or even 15. The information would infer that the TO double included the hands that had defense and those that may not have good defense. Information is not passed as to the condition of doubler's hand outside of the agreement of the double. Doubler has heard south promise 18 points, his partner promise 9 points and north promise 15. Once the significant break in tempo occurs, the range of hands narrows to those that have defense. So what would pass convey to partner now? It would convey that after careful consideration that in east's opinion the slam is likely to make even though he has defense. In other words in his opinion the opponents have too many voids/ working short suits. And he is not willing to risk bidding against the possibility the slam is a phantom nor is he willing to double. It is this inference that is made available by the UI that is not available absent the UI. This demonstrably suggests bidding 6S over the two actions most strongly suggested by AI, pass and double. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas | First of all I don't agree with your approach. We should not start by | examining the call chosen by the player in possession of UI. Rather | we should consider what the UI suggests. If we determine that the UI | suggests one LA over another then we should be prepared to | demonstrate that that is what it suggests. At the table West is | required not to choose an LA that was suggested, so the reasoning we | use to decide what the UI demonstrably suggests must be clear enough | that a player could apply it at the table. Here we must be prepared | to explain to West why he should have known that the hesitation was | likely to indicate extra offense rather than extra defense. | | Second, West knew from the authorized information (North leapt to | slam) that his S KQ were likely worthless on defense. A more | interesting question is what his C QJ were worth, and where partner's | honors are. Since East doesn't have more than five points in spades | he must have something outside. | | 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 Wed Oct 25 02:24:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9OGO0F14637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 02:24:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9OGNot14633 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 02:23:51 +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 MAA07372 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 12:23:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA17026 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 12:23:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 12:23:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200010241623.MAA17026@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > (If we > believe that [anyone] was intentionally attempting to gain advantage > from the UI he thought he had, in violation of L73C, we may/should > chastise him with a C&E penalty, but that's another issue.) While I agree with the C&E penalty for intentional violations, why couldn't we also use L73C and L12A1 to adjust the score? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 25 02:26:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9OGQXF14653 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 02:26:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9OGQRt14649 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 02:26:27 +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 MAA07465 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 12:26:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA17034 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 12:26:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 12:26:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200010241626.MAA17034@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Withdrawn call? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: alain gottcheiner > You could still use 16B, if needed, and adjust the score, if it appears > that E/W used UI. The list of occurrences when 16B applies isn't exhaustive. I don't see where L16B comes into this. If there's UI -- and the question is whether or not there is -- surely it comes from _partner_. That means L16A or 16C, not 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 Wed Oct 25 03:10:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9OH9uD14733 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 03:09:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9OH9nt14729 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 03:09:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA11626 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 13:12:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200010241712.NAA11626@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams of Four. Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <5wJ$thAMOO95EwQw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <000c01c039f7$e26d67a0$bad936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <5wJ$thAMOO95EwQw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 13:12:57 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 24 October 2000 at 2:19, David Stevenson wrote: >Peter Gill wrote: > >>Didn't I also write earlier in this thread something like >>(no offence intended to Shakespeare): >>"much ado about nothing" > > I do not think it is "much ado about nothing" when some people's views >will hamstring SOs and other people's views will not. It is important >to get it sorted out. > I've been avoiding this thread because I only had one thing to say in it. But I guess it's time to put it in. I subscribe to the "don't lose the post-mortem" style of play. If I pass a takeout double, and it's wrong, it's my fault. So I'd better be able to "win it in the bar". If I pass a forcing bid, it's my fault if it's wrong. If I bid on, and the forcing bid shouldn't have been made, it's partner's fault. I like that more (and it leads to partnership harmony, because I also subscribe to the "partner already knows he made a mistake - I don't have to tell him" style of play. And almost all of the partners I'd willingly play with do). In situations like the one Anne brought up, I'd subscribe to the "don't lose the post-mortem" style of directing. If nothing else is my guide (and the conditions of this request state that this is the case), when called to the table, I would say "I was asked about this at the beginning of the game, and allowed it then. If I was wrong, I'll take the heat for it, but I'm sticking to my ruling." - unless they can prove me wrong at the table, not a likely thing IMO; David's comment is evidence of that. The problem is that I was asked, and did allow it, and now the fifth player has rescheduled his day to at least make it for the last half of the game. If I bar him now, then I've definately done something wrong. If I let him play, I've only done something wrong if my judgement at the beginning was faulty. And there's a special section in TFLB that deals with director's errors. BTW, was I the embodiment of the SO here, or was there someone official (i.e. someone responsible for the event, not just this running of it) I could turn to to get a ruling *at the time the 5-member team asked*? Now - as to what the ruling should be, I have no comment. I happen to like the "each round is a session for L4 purposes" regulation of the ACBL for Swiss Teams, and have used it on at least one occasion (we arrived at the game with the two scientists playing with, not as teammates of, the two natural free-wheelers. We went 0-4, unsurprisingly. We switched, and handily won the rest of our matches, and stopped at least one fight breaking out in the car on the way home). But if the SO wishes to decide that for the purposes of this event, there are three sessions, and you can't change the players at the table except at session break, that's fine with me. "get it in writing", though (I'm sure they will, one way or the other, for next year). 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 Oct 25 03:29:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9OHSo314781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 03:28:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9OHSet14776 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 03:28:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4ik.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.18.84]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA17577 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 13:28:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000901c03de0$7e451880$5412f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: Subject: Re: [BLML] Hammurabi Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 13:33:14 -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 They must have excellent unemployment compensation in England. :-) But it WOULD give you more time for the cats. Craig -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 11:52 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Hammurabi >Richard wrote: > >>If the Portland Club had exclusive responsibility for the Laws of Bridge, >>and you were its owner, what changes to TFLB would you make? > > I would get rid of duplicate bridge entirely. > > :) > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 25 04:20:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9OIIGH14849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 04:18:16 +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 e9OII9t14845 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 04:18:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA22724; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 11:18:05 -0700 Message-Id: <200010241818.LAA22724@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Hammurabi In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:26:37 PDT." Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 11:18:05 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Hills wrote: > If the Portland Club had exclusive responsibility for the Laws of Bridge, > and you were its owner, what changes to TFLB would you make? Well, since you mentioned Hammurabi in the subject line, I found a page on the Internet with excerpts from his laws, and I think some of his ideas could be applied, such as: Should a player who is able to follow suit fail to do so, his hands shall be cut off. This would avoid some of the ambiguities in the current Laws that have led to long arguments here on BLML. -- Adam [apologies if this has been posted twice] -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 25 05:43:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9OJh4H14951 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 05:43:04 +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 e9OJgvt14947 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 05:42:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4rt.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.125]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA28000; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 15:42:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <007401c03df3$42339d40$7d13f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: Subject: Re: [BLML] Hammurabi Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 15:47:33 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk How about: Should a player argue with the director out of sheer bloody mindedness, his tongue should be cut out? Craig -----Original Message----- From: Adam Beneschan To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: adam@irvine.com Date: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 2:28 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Hammurabi > >Richard Hills wrote: > >> If the Portland Club had exclusive responsibility for the Laws of Bridge, >> and you were its owner, what changes to TFLB would you make? > >Well, since you mentioned Hammurabi in the subject line, I found a >page on the Internet with excerpts from his laws, and I think some of >his ideas could be applied, such as: > > Should a player who is able to follow suit fail to do so, his hands > shall be cut off. > >This would avoid some of the ambiguities in the current Laws that have >led to long arguments here on BLML. > > -- Adam > > >[apologies if this has been posted twice] >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Oct 25 06:47:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9OKlB715012 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 06:47:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9OKl4t15007 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 06:47:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9ODuQq00622 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 13:56:26 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 13:41:15 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200010231540.IAA23684@mailhub.irvine.com> <000f01c03d29$a37b63a0$3ab301d5@D457300> <005701c03d59$295390e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <005701c03d59$295390e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00102413562601.00581@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Marvin L. French wrote: > If a player misinterprets the UI sent by partner, then takes an action > based on what is demonstrably suggested by that misinterpretation when > there is a logical alternative, and the action damages the opponents, > then the opponents are due redress. > > I thought this principle was established and accepted long ago. > > Example: A player hesitates because s/he wanted to bid, then passes, and > hir hand is not a doubling sort of hand. Hir partner thinks a double was > being considered, and doubles without a doubling sort of hand. Thanks to > extraordinarily good luck and some unskillful play by declarer, the > contract is defeated. There was damage, redress is due. And I thought the opposite was implied, because of the change from "reasonably" to "demonstrably". Example: South opens 1H, West bids 2S, and North bids a slow (beyond the normal pause for a skip bid) 3H. South has a hand which could reasonably bid 4H or pass. He passes, possibly based on the assumption that partner stretched to raise. Actually, North was considering jumping to 4H, but 3H makes only three when hearts break 4-0. If you adjust here, you must also adjust if South bids 4H and makes it on normal breaks. Essentially, the slow 4H would force South to get the worse result no matter what he did. In Marvin's case, there is an additional ethical issue, in that a player takes an actuion which would not be a LA without the UI. It is proper to warn or possibly give a PP to a player in this position, but I don't see a basis for an adjustment based on the UI "demonstrably" suggesting 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 Wed Oct 25 07:31:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9OLV5415078 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 07:31:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9OLUwt15074 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 07:30:58 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 5210848713; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 17:30:54 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <022001c03b7a$60028280$7ad736cb@gillp.bigpond.com><002e01c03b9e$c580d480$2 73b1dc2@rabbit> Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 17:30:57 -0400 To: "Roger Pewick" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Cc: "blml" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:03 AM -0500 10/24/00, Roger Pewick wrote: >Consider the information from the auction had east passed after ten >seconds or even 15. The information would infer that the TO double >included the hands that had defense and those that may not have good >defense. Information is not passed as to the condition of doubler's >hand outside of the agreement of the double. > >Doubler has heard south promise 18 points, his partner promise 9 points >and north promise 15. Once the significant break in tempo occurs, the >range of hands narrows to those that have defense. So what would pass >convey to partner now? It would convey that after careful consideration >that in east's opinion the slam is likely to make even though he has >defense. In other words in his opinion the opponents have too many >voids/ working short suits. And he is not willing to risk bidding >against the possibility the slam is a phantom nor is he willing to >double. > >It is this inference that is made available by the UI that is not >available absent the UI. This demonstrably suggests bidding 6S over the >two actions most strongly suggested by AI, pass and double. Well put, but I still have reservations. East's speculations that NS have extra distribution are equally available to West as AI. Are you supposing that East is the better player, or knows his opponents better than West does? More to the point, how does the knowledge that East is unsure whether to bid or double (which is similar to, though not precisely the same as, the AI from East's pass) demonstrably suggest to West that bidding will likely be more successful than passing? 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 Wed Oct 25 14:12:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9P4BLP15745 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 14:11:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9P4BEt15741 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 14:11:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcaui4n.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.72.151]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA25096 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 00:11:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <002a01c03e39$763ad900$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "BLML" References: <200010220406.AAA18657@freenet10.carleton.ca> <009601c03d13$0af6e700$0200000a@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 00:10:07 -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, October 24, 2000 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces > Hirsch Davis wrote: > > >A sematic point. A hesitation is not UI. Inferences about partner's > >hand that can be derived from a hesitation are UI. A hesitation that > >is completely uninformative is not UI. IMO, this distinction helps us > >get away from the "if it hesitates, shoot it" mentality and guides us > >to looking at the information that was actually passed. > > While true, the effect is much the same. A hesitation suggests doubt: > knowledge of partner's doubt is UI. It is normally a shortcut to say > that a hesitation "is" UI since it just about always creates UI. > I agree, but I tend to be sensitive about that particular point for a reason. If one thinks of the hesitation as the UI, it's easy to skip the step of asking what information was passed and what it suggested. This stems from an early experience I had directing, one of the first times I directed at a higher level than a club game. A pair of Flight A teams were playing a KO match. I was summoned to the table and given the auction (this is approximate, since this was about 10 years ago) 1C-2H-2S-3H-(hesitation)X- all P. The doubler had his hesitation; it's not all that often at IMPs that you open, partner has a good hand, and the opponents bid up to the three level in a suit in which you hold AKQJ. After the bloody massacre, I was called to rule if pass was a legitimate call after the slow double. The player who had bid 2S had 11 cards in spades and diamonds, with good values. Even with the double, slam is not out of the question. However, the UI suggested pulling, and I couldn't fault him for taking the option not suggested by the UI. I believe my exact words were "I don't see what else he could do. Score stands." I informed the other side of their right to appeal, but they weren't interested and I wandered off to tell the DIC about the ruling, at which point things got truly bizarre. The DIC looked at me like I was crazy for actually making a ruling, and told me to ask Steve Robinson, who was playing in a different event, if pass was a 70% action (the ACBL criterion for accepting a LA under L16 back then). Robinson got interested in the hand, showed it around, and got the predictable range of responses. None of them came anywhere near 70% of course. So, the DIC, after consulting with Robinson, told me to go back to the table and give A+/A-, since the pass after the slow double wasn't a 70% action. Ridiculous, but my opinion wasn't asked for. Once the DIC, in this case a senior Regionally-rated ACBL TD, rules, that's it. Junior TDs, particularly inexperienced club TDs, don't argue. So, I went back to the table and delivered the ruling, making sure that the side who had left in the double were aware of their right to appeal. The team that had gotten screwed won the match anyway, and didn't appeal. They were aware I was a rookie TD, and one of them graciously sought me out after the game to let me know that I had acted correctly, including consulting after my original ruling. Fred King, the player who passed the double, sent the hand and the final ruling to the Bridge World (thankfully leaving me out of it). Robinson, who was the actual architect of the final ruling, wrote a rebuttal of sorts. The Bridge World published the letters in an editorial called, IIRC, "A Draconian Ruling", in which Kaplan blasted the ruling for not allowing the call that had not been suggested by the UI. The DIC has since retired, and ruling quality in the area has increased noticeably. Oh well, I had it right for a couple of minutes. And I wound up with my very first ruling in a Flight A game getting roasted in the Bridge World. This may be why I'm a bit sensitive about hesitation rulings... 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 Oct 25 16:39:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9P6cao16088 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 16:38:36 +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 e9P6cUt16084 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 16:38:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 23:35:54 -0700 Message-ID: <006e01c03e4e$0a7cdbe0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <200010231540.IAA23684@mailhub.irvine.com> <000f01c03d29$a37b63a0$3ab301d5@D457300> <005701c03d59$295390e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <002901c03dc0$ecfd1cc0$0200000a@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 23:36:24 -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 Hirsch Davis wrote Marv wrote: > > Example: A player hesitates because s/he wanted to bid, then passes, > > and hir hand is not a doubling sort of hand. Hir partner thinks a double > > was being considered, and doubles without a doubling sort of hand. > > Thanks to extraordinarily good luck and some unskillful play by > > declarer, the contract is defeated. There was damage, redress is due. > > > > Marv > > mlfrench@writeme.com > > > > ?? > > What exactly is the infraction for which you are proposing an > adjustment? Check me to see if I have this right. There is UI. The > UI suggests that option A will be more successful than option B. The > player selects option B. If an ethical law-abiding player took this > course of action, that would be the end of it. However, you are > saying that if our player misinterpreted the UI, so that this player > believed that option B was suggested, and that player now takes option > B, the opponents are due redress? You are overlooking option C, pass. The UI does not suggest that option A will be more successful, where did I say that? The UI suggested (to the person who counts) that option B will be more successful than a pass. The infraction is selecting option B (provided, of course, that pass is an LA). > > I agree that the player who takes this action needs a lecture on UI > (if we even find out about this), and bears watching in the future. > However, it's hard to see how we can penalize one player, when the > bridge action taken is exactly the same legal one that would be taken > by a law-abiding ethical player. IMO the Laws require that we > penalize illegal actions, not impure motivation or bad bridge > judgement. > The bridge action that would be taken by a law-abiding ethical player is a pass. So, you people think that if a player takes an action that would not have been taken absent partner's hesitation, then you have to look at the hesitator's hand to see if L16A applies? If that's right, better get it into 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 Wed Oct 25 17:14:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9P7EAl16169 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 17:14:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9P7E4t16165 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 17:14:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 00:11:29 -0700 Message-ID: <008401c03e53$0350ab80$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200010231540.IAA23684@mailhub.irvine.com> <000f01c03d29$a37b63a0$3ab301d5@D457300> <005701c03d59$295390e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <00102413562601.00581@psa836> Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 00:10:02 -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 Grabiner wrote: > On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Marvin L. French wrote: > > > If a player misinterprets the UI sent by partner, then takes an action > > based on what is demonstrably suggested by that misinterpretation when > > there is a logical alternative, and the action damages the opponents, > > then the opponents are due redress. > > > > I thought this principle was established and accepted long ago. > > > > Example: A player hesitates because s/he wanted to bid, then passes, and > > hir hand is not a doubling sort of hand. Hir partner thinks a double was > > being considered, and doubles without a doubling sort of hand. Thanks to > > extraordinarily good luck and some unskillful play by declarer, the > > contract is defeated. There was damage, redress is due. > > And I thought the opposite was implied, because of the change from > "reasonably" to "demonstrably". As I remember, that change was made merely to accord with then-current TD/AC practice, which some BL's were challenging with specious "reasoning." > > Example: South opens 1H, West bids 2S, and North bids a slow (beyond > the normal pause for a skip bid) 3H. South has a hand which could > reasonably bid 4H or pass. He passes, possibly based on the > assumption that partner stretched to raise. Actually, North was > considering jumping to 4H, but 3H makes only three when hearts break > 4-0. If you adjust here, you must also adjust if South bids 4H and > makes it on normal breaks. Essentially, the slow 4H would force > South to get the worse result no matter what he did. Not analogous, David. In my (strained) example, an action taken was clearly one that would not have been taken absent the hesitation. No such situation exists in your example. > > In Marvin's case, there is an additional ethical issue, in that a > player takes an action which would not be a LA without the UI. LA to what? Let's get away from using LA as if it stood for "logical choice." > It is > proper to warn or possibly give a PP to a player in this position, but > I don't see a basis for an adjustment based on the UI "demonstrably" > suggesting something. > We are back to what the word "suggest" means, an old discussion on BLML. It's another of those ambiguous words that should not be used in the Laws. Those who think to suggest something means that the message received must be one intended by the sender, then consider this: -- The opening music suggested a still, moonlit night. The composer might find that statement quite surprising. 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 Oct 25 17:29:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9P7TDT16209 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 17:29:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9P7T6t16205 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 17:29:07 +1000 (EST) Received: by esebh03nok with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2652.78) id ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 10:19:21 +0300 Message-ID: From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Hammurabi Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 10:16:34 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2652.78) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Richard wrote: > > >If the Portland Club had exclusive responsibility for the > Laws of Bridge, > >and you were its owner, what changes to TFLB would you make? L25 = "A call once made may not by changed" Shoot down L45C4b L68 = change to DBclaims Shoot down L7B1 (if somoeone doesn't want to see his cards, why should he?) ... just for a good start. 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 Oct 25 18:19:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9P8I6w16305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 18:18:06 +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 (f109.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.109]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9P8Hvt16301 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 18:17:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 01:17:49 -0700 Received: from 172.128.171.199 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 08:17:49 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.128.171.199] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 01:17:49 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Oct 2000 08:17:49.0648 (UTC) FILETIME=[10395500:01C03E5C] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Marvin L. French" > > It is > > proper to warn or possibly give a PP to a player in this position, but > > I don't see a basis for an adjustment based on the UI "demonstrably" > > suggesting something. > > >We are back to what the word "suggest" means, an old discussion on BLML. >It's another of those ambiguous words that should not be used in the >Laws. Those who think to suggest something means that the message >received must be one intended by the sender, then consider this: > >-- The opening music suggested a still, moonlit night. > >The composer might find that statement quite surprising. I think we should assume that there was no intended meaning by the sender in UI cases in bridge. I wouldn't sit with a player that intended any specific meaning in UI. Suggested seems arbitrary and up to the powers that be. Unlike the choices of LA, the suggested actions are not based on the player's peers. The player's peers are equally likely or unlikely to interpret the UI correctly. It certainly isn't based on what the player himself thinks. I wouldn't have a problem not being able to fathom the mob otherwise. You can violate the proprieties of the game without committing an infraction of any law. I've been met with much personal outrage for suggesting that I give up figuring out with the UI means to me even if the end result is that I've happened to satisfy L16. -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 Oct 25 19:37:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9P9ag416481 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 19:36:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (guppy.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9P9aZt16477 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 19:36:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.0.ap (guppy)) id LAA06605; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 11:34:35 +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 LAA18317; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 11:36:18 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001025114656.007f8b10@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 11:46:56 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] discrepancy ruling Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello again, A nice problem about diverging explanations arose last saturday in the Belgiam Teams Championships. Teams / South dealer / vul irrelevant / competent players all around. Note that S/W are screenmates. J73 K105 AQJ2 J72 94 AQ102 7642 QJ3 K109864 75 A 10854 K865 A98 3 KQ963 S W N E 1C (1) p 1S (2) X (3) 2C 2D (4) 2S (5) p 3C (6) p p p (1) either natural or any 16-19 NT (2) diamonds (exceptionally 3 cards) ; equivalent to a Walsh 1D response (3) spades (4) explained by W to S as natural ; by E to N as a cue-bid with spade support (5) N intends to asks about stoppers / controls in spades (6) but South has been told that E/W have two suits : S and D ; in such a case, the cue-bid of 2S is affirmative in spades and interrogative in diamonds N/S should make 3NT. They call the director and argue that the diverging explanations provoked their misunderstanding about the meaning of 2S. How do you rule ? Thanks for the 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 Wed Oct 25 21:43:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9PBgKk16775 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 21:42:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xion.spase.nl (router.spase.nl [213.53.246.249]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9PBgEt16770 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 21:42:14 +1000 (EST) Received: by xion.spase.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <4YTR5ZW5>; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 13:41:03 +0200 Message-ID: From: Martin Sinot To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] discrepancy ruling Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 13:40:45 +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 alain gottcheiner wrote: >Hello again, > >A nice problem about diverging explanations arose last saturday in the >Belgiam Teams Championships. > >Teams / South dealer / vul irrelevant / competent players all around. > >Note that S/W are screenmates. > > J73 > K105 > AQJ2 > J72 > > 94 AQ102 > 7642 QJ3 > K109864 75 > A 10854 > > K865 > A98 > 3 > KQ963 > > W N E S > > - - - 1C (1) > p 1S (2) X (3) 2C > 2D (4) 2S (5) p 3C (6) > p p p > >(1) either natural or any 16-19 NT >(2) diamonds (exceptionally 3 cards) ; equivalent to a Walsh 1D response >(3) spades >(4) explained by W to S as natural ; by E to N as a cue-bid with spade support >(5) N intends to asks about stoppers / controls in spades >(6) but South has been told that E/W have two suits : S and D ; in such a >case, the cue-bid of 2S is affirmative in spades and interrogative in diamonds > >N/S should make 3NT. They call the director and argue that the diverging >explanations provoked their misunderstanding about the meaning of 2S. > >How do you rule ? > >Thanks for the help. > > Alain. (Removed tabs from auction and deal; rearranged auction so that West is on the left. It reads better this way) NS' arguments look like common bridge knowledge to me: if opponents show one suit, then you ask for stoppers, if they show two, then you show stoppers. Therefore, I rule that NS are indeed damaged by the MI: if NS both had the same information (West's or East's - note that it does not matter which of the two gave the right info), then either North would have shown the diamond stopper instead of asking for a spade stopper, or South would have shown a spade stopper instead of denying a diamond stopper. Either way NS will reach 3NT. I therefore adjust the score to 3NT made for NS. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 25 22:00:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9PC0cW16849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 22:00:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9PC0Wt16840 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 22:00:33 +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 e9PC0R199494 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 08:00:28 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20001025075014.00b1d580@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, 25 Oct 2000 07:59:03 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces In-Reply-To: <200010241623.MAA17026@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 12:23 PM 10/24/00, Steve wrote: > > From: Eric Landau > > (If we > > believe that [anyone] was intentionally attempting to gain advantage > > from the UI he thought he had, in violation of L73C, we may/should > > chastise him with a C&E penalty, but that's another issue.) > >While I agree with the C&E penalty for intentional violations, why >couldn't we also use L73C and L12A1 to adjust the score? Because (as I interpret the situation) there has been no violation, hence no grounds for adjustment under either law. That leaves C&E action, which is appropriate when a player has deliberately attempted to violate the law, but has failed to competently manage to actually do so. (Two split infinitives back to back! A new record?) 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 Oct 25 23:34:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9PDXlf17135 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 23:33:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9PDXet17130 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 23:33:41 +1000 (EST) Received: by esebh03nok with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2652.78) id ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 16:25:52 +0300 Message-ID: From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] discrepancy ruling Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 16:25:22 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2652.78) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > NS' arguments look like common bridge knowledge to me: if > opponents show one > suit, then you ask for stoppers, if they show two, then you > show stoppers. Is it? It is quite possible that I am caveman among the learned men but I play the opposite (I have been convinced until now that this is more natural) that if the bad guys have shown two suit (let it be S + D)then cue-bidding S shows a D stopper and worry about S and vice versa. This is a common treatment in Cracow. Well, perhaps it is some local perversion but... 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 Oct 25 23:52:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9PDqVE17195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 23:52:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9PDqOt17191 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 23:52:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis28.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.28]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.1999.06.13.00.20) with ESMTP id <0G2Z00JOBNRLJV@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 15:50:11 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 13:17:16 +0200 From: Richard Bley Subject: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Two Aces X-Sender: Richard.Bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <5.0.0.25.0.20001025131643.00a0c950@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Seems, that my mail vanished somewhere... Here next try: >Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 16:20:47 +0200 >To: bridge-laws >From: Richard Bley >Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces > >At 08:52 24.10.2000 +0100, Grattan Endicott wrote: > >>Grattan Endicott> <=> >>"Justice must not only be seen to be done but >>has to be seen to be believed." (Beachcomber) >>==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+== >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: Peter Gill >>To: BLML >>Sent: Monday, October 23, 2000 11:34 PM >>Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces >> >> >> > >> > Hirsch Davis wrote: >> > >>Does the hesitation reveal any more information than that >> > >>partner needed time to digest this unexpected leap into slam? >> > >> > I think that's what EW meant by "East's long trance was >> > understandable" - that the 6H bid took East by surprise and >> > it took him almost a minute to work out not to double with >> > his two aces because the 6H bidder probably had a void. >> > >> > Peter Gill >> > Australia. >> > >>+=+ Indeed? Do we then judge that West is >>capable of recognizing that East has some >>such problem? If so, does it detract at all >>from the general circumstance that if West >>has UI the least suggested action is Pass, >>if Pass is a LA? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >Pass is a LA. And pass is unsuitable after the hesitation. >Look at it at this way: >Say there are 100 ypes of hand which partner can have (hunderd is easiest >to explain) >This is the line >defensive oriented hands - offensive hands >1 10 20 30 40 50 ... 100 > >They are all (say equal to make it easy) possible. After the hesitation >pard doesnt have the hands from, say: >11-80 what leave are >1-10 and 81-100. (personal oppinion) > >say that with 1-12 double is correct and with 75-100 it is correct to bid on. > >Before the hesitation it had a 25% chance (75-100) that bidding on was >correct. After the hesitation it is 2/3 of all remaining cases. > >So bidding on is a LA which is more attractive after the hesitation. And >yes doubling is the same problem (33% instead of 10%) and would be >penalized either. So Pass is the only correct bid. > >So I agree here with Grattan and I agree with the american approach (the >numbers are probably wrong here, but hopefully I could myself make >understanding despite this is so complicated) > > > >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 Oct 26 00:22:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9PELoh17312 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 00:21:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9PELit17308 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 00:21:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcauhsm.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.71.150]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA00091 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 10:21:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001801c03e8e$c0513700$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "BLML" References: <200010231540.IAA23684@mailhub.irvine.com> <000f01c03d29$a37b63a0$3ab301d5@D457300> <005701c03d59$295390e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <002901c03dc0$ecfd1cc0$0200000a@mindspring.com> <006e01c03e4e$0a7cdbe0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 10:20:39 -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: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 2:36 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces > So, you people think that if a player takes an action that would not > have been taken absent partner's hesitation, then you have to look at > the hesitator's hand to see if L16A applies? If that's right, better get > it into the Laws. > No, we have to determine if the hesitation suggested the action over another. If the action would not have occurred in the absence of the hesitation, but was not suggested by the hesitation, it's still legal. The hesitator's hand is irrelevant. IMO, we look at the auction and the hand opposite the hesitation, and see what the LAs are. We then form a preliminary determination of the actions suggested over another by the hesitation. We then look at the agreements and experience of this particular partnership, to see if that modifies the LAs. We then look at pairs of LAs, and determine if the UI suggests that one of the LAs in the pair will be more successful (that is my reading of the phrase in 16A "could demonstrably have been suggested over another"). If yes, that LA is disallowed. If the LA is not suggested over any of the other LAs, it is a legal call. There is no requirement that the selected action would have occurred in the absence of a hesitation. In fact, ethical players often take actions that would not have occurred in the absence of a hesitation, when the action they were originally contemplating becomes suggested by UI. 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 Oct 26 01:35:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9PFYuI17484 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 01:34:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9PFYnt17480 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 01:34:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA16965; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 08:34:47 -0700 Message-Id: <200010251534.IAA16965@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 25 Oct 2000 07:59:03 PDT." <4.3.2.7.1.20001025075014.00b1d580@127.0.0.1> Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 08:34:46 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > At 12:23 PM 10/24/00, Steve wrote: > > > > From: Eric Landau > > > (If we > > > believe that [anyone] was intentionally attempting to gain advantage > > > from the UI he thought he had, in violation of L73C, we may/should > > > chastise him with a C&E penalty, but that's another issue.) > > > >While I agree with the C&E penalty for intentional violations, why > >couldn't we also use L73C and L12A1 to adjust the score? > > Because (as I interpret the situation) there has been no violation, > hence no grounds for adjustment under either law. That leaves C&E > action, which is appropriate when a player has deliberately attempted ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > to violate the law, but has failed to competently manage to actually do ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > so. (Two split infinitives back to back! A new record?) Didn't you mean to say "when a player has attempted to deliberately violate the law"? You would have had an even better claim at a new record. -- 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 Oct 26 02:06:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9PG6V817586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 02:06:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9PG6Kt17582 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 02:06:21 +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 QAA19492 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 16:06:11 GMT Message-ID: <39F70513.CB5CB0B0@meteo.fr> Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 18:06:43 +0200 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] discrepancy ruling References: <3.0.6.32.20001025114656.007f8b10@pop.ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner a écrit : > > Hello again, > > A nice problem about diverging explanations arose last saturday in the > Belgiam Teams Championships. > > Teams / South dealer / vul irrelevant / competent players all around. > > Note that S/W are screenmates. > > J73 > K105 > AQJ2 > J72 > > 94 AQ102 > 7642 QJ3 > K109864 75 > A 10854 > > K865 > A98 > 3 > KQ963 > > S W N E > > 1C (1) p 1S (2) X (3) > 2C 2D (4) 2S (5) p > 3C (6) p p p > > (1) either natural or any 16-19 NT > (2) diamonds (exceptionally 3 cards) ; equivalent to a Walsh 1D response > (3) spades > (4) explained by W to S as natural ; by E to N as a cue-bid with spade support > (5) N intends to asks about stoppers / controls in spades > (6) but South has been told that E/W have two suits : S and D ; in such a > case, the cue-bid of 2S is affirmative in spades and interrogative in diamonds > > N/S should make 3NT. They call the director and argue that the diverging > explanations provoked their misunderstanding about the meaning of 2S. > > How do you rule ? The situation seems clear-cut and NS have a very good case for an adjusted score of 3NT. They have evidence of MI (two different explanations, one of which at least must be erroneous) and their damage is a direct result of irregularity. Where is the problem? Don't tell us NS were judged guilty of using unusual methods doomed to disturb opponents? I would not be surprised to learn both E and W have given MI, each one trying to give his appreciation of the 2D bid instead of merely disclosing partnership agreements and experience, as it happens so often, even with competent players. JP Rocafort > > Thanks for the 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/ -- ___________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/SC/D 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 Thu Oct 26 02:37:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9PGbBf17624 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 02:37:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9PGb5t17620 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 02:37:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 09:34:29 -0700 Message-ID: <00a301c03ea1$a978d8e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 09:25:56 -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 Zimnoch" > >From: "Marvin L. French" > > > It is > > > proper to warn or possibly give a PP to a player in this position, but > > > I don't see a basis for an adjustment based on the UI "demonstrably" > > > suggesting something. > > > > >We are back to what the word "suggest" means, an old discussion on BLML. > >It's another of those ambiguous words that should not be used in the > >Laws. Those who think to suggest something means that the message > >received must be one intended by the sender, then consider this: > > > >-- The opening music suggested a still, moonlit night. > > > >The composer might find that statement quite surprising. > > I think we should assume that there was no intended meaning by the > sender in UI cases in bridge. I wouldn't sit with a player that intended > any specific meaning in UI. > Okay, "intend" was the wrong word, but you're missing the point. Some people seem to believe that if a player's UI prompts partner to do something s/he would not have done without the UI, the action taken must accord with the hesitator's hand in order for an infraction to have occurred. That is, if no accurate message, transmitted with or without intent, has been received, then no UI infraction is possible because no action has been "demonstrably" suggested. That is using one meaning of "suggest," which is to send, intentionally or not, an accurate message. Another meaning, which I believe applies in L16A, is to cause an idea to arise in another's mind "through association or natural connection of ideas," as my dictionary puts it. A woman's actions may suggest something to me that is neither intended nor inherent in her actions, making it a misinterpretation on my part. Just because I misinterpreted, one cannot say that the woman's actions suggested nothing to me. To repeat what I wrote elsewhere, I don't believe a hesitator's hand should be examined to see if hir partner received the right message when the partner has obviously taken an action that was based on (i.e., demonstrably suggested by) the hesitation. 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 Oct 26 07:04:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9PL2V418108 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 07:02:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9PL2Nt18104 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 07:02:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id RAA10664 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 17:02:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA23755 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 17:02:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 17:02:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200010252102.RAA23755@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > > > believe that [anyone] was intentionally attempting to gain advantage > > > from the UI he thought he had, in violation of L73C, we may/should > > > chastise him with a C&E penalty, but that's another issue.) > Because (as I interpret the situation) there has been no violation, > hence no grounds for adjustment under either law. That leaves C&E > action, which is appropriate when a player has deliberately attempted > to violate the law, but has failed to competently manage to actually do > so. (Two split infinitives back to back! A new record?) That's an interesting view, but I'm afraid I don't share it. L73C affirmatively requires a player to "avoid" taking advantage. If a player tries to take advantage, even ineptly, it seems to me that L73C has been violated. In other words, I believe L16A and 73C are independent laws, and we judge violations of each one separately. (Often a violation of one will be a violation of the other, but it need not be so.) We have discussed related situations before, and I know my view is not unanimously shared on BLML. (What is? And no, don't answer L25B!) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 26 08:00:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9PLxtf18198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 07:59:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f72.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9PLxot18193 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 07:59:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 14:59:42 -0700 Received: from 172.146.157.237 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 21:59:42 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.146.157.237] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 14:59:42 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Oct 2000 21:59:42.0140 (UTC) FILETIME=[E0C277C0:01C03ECE] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Steve Willner > > From: Eric Landau > > > > believe that [anyone] was intentionally attempting to gain advantage > > > > from the UI he thought he had, in violation of L73C, we may/should > > > > chastise him with a C&E penalty, but that's another issue.) > > > Because (as I interpret the situation) there has been no violation, > > hence no grounds for adjustment under either law. That leaves C&E > > action, which is appropriate when a player has deliberately attempted > > to violate the law, but has failed to competently manage to actually do > > so. (Two split infinitives back to back! A new record?) > >That's an interesting view, but I'm afraid I don't share it. L73C >affirmatively requires a player to "avoid" taking advantage. If a >player tries to take advantage, even ineptly, it seems to me that L73C >has been violated. > >In other words, I believe L16A and 73C are independent laws, and we >judge violations of each one separately. (Often a violation of one will >be a violation of the other, but it need not be so.) L12A1 is worded such that "when these Laws empower him to do so or: ... these Laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending side." L16A provides indemnity to the non-offending side for L73C-type violations. I do not believe the TD is allowed to adjust for an L73C violation except through L16A. >We have discussed related situations before, and I know my view is not >unanimously shared on BLML. (What is? And no, don't answer L25B!) If there is a law that handles one type of violation, are you ever allowed to use L12A1 to adjust for that violation? -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 Oct 26 08:06:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9PM6Mk18225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 08:06:22 +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 (f232.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.232]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9PM6Gt18221 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 08:06:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 15:06:09 -0700 Received: from 172.146.157.237 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 22:06:08 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.146.157.237] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 15:06:08 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Oct 2000 22:06:09.0031 (UTC) FILETIME=[C75D5970:01C03ECF] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Richard Bley >>Pass is a LA. And pass is unsuitable after the hesitation. >>Look at it at this way: >>Say there are 100 ypes of hand which partner can have (hunderd is easiest >>to explain) >>This is the line >>defensive oriented hands - offensive hands >>1 10 20 30 40 50 ... 100 >> >>They are all (say equal to make it easy) possible. After the hesitation >>pard doesnt have the hands from, say: >>11-80 what leave are >>1-10 and 81-100. (personal oppinion) >> >>say that with 1-12 double is correct and with 75-100 it is correct to bid >>on. This doesn't jive with me. If I held a hand that was so clearly in favor of offense or defense, I wouldn't pass to let my partner decide. I have enough information to make that decision myself. After the slow pass, the ranges 1-10 and 81-100 are eliminated leaving the 11-80 range. -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 Oct 26 11:39:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9Q1csb18705 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 11:38:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9Q1ckt18701 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 11:38:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.6.67.34] (helo=D457300) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13oc07-000420-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 02:38:39 +0100 Message-ID: <001601c03eed$490e0240$2243063e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: "BLML" References: <200010231540.IAA23684@mailhub.irvine.com> <000f01c03d29$a37b63a0$3ab301d5@D457300> <005701c03d59$295390e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <002901c03dc0$ecfd1cc0$0200000a@mindspring.com> <006e01c03e4e$0a7cdbe0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <001801c03e8e$c0513700$0200000a@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 02:36:44 +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: [MF] > > So, you people think that if a player takes an action that would not > > have been taken absent partner's hesitation, then you have to look > at > > the hesitator's hand to see if L16A applies? If that's right, better > get > > it into the Laws. It is in the Laws. When a player has available to him unauthorised information, he must avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side. But when a player does something that he would never have done had he possessed any information at all about his partner's hand, then it is reasonable to assume that the player does not have available to him any information whatsoever. And if he does not have any information available to him whatsoever, then he certainly does not have available to him any unauthorised information. You have to look at the hesitator's hand to see whether or not his mannerism actually transmitted any kind of information at all about his hand; if it could not have done, then his partner could not have had available to him any information, let alone any unauthorised information. In that case, Law 73 and Law 16 simply do not apply. It is not good enough to say, as Grattan says, that the hesitation transmitted the "information" that the hesitator was not sure what to do; only if the hesitation transmits some meaningful information as to why the hesitator was not sure what to do may a breach of L73 be held to have taken place when the hesitator's partner acts. Were this not so, then (as others have pointed out), a man with no obvious action following a mannerism by partner might as well fold his tent, for he simply cannot do the right thing. If what he does works, it will be disallowed and something that would not work substituted for it; if what he does fails to work, the score will quietly be entered on the traveller. The difficulty people have is that when a player does something ludicrous, he sometimes gets luckier than people who would have done something sensible would have gotten. (My English professor will forgive me that last sentence, for he was prepared to concede that the important thing was to get the sense across, however vilely you had to express yourself in order to do it.) If his ludicrous action was (a) favoured by the Gods and (b) subsequent upon a mannerism by his partner, then the opponents will complain about it as night follows day. From what I have read in this thread, their complaint would be upheld by a large number of people who would immediately look for "logical alternatives" and "suggestions", as if those made any difference. This obsession with the details of the actual hand and the actual auction has come to the point where serious bridge players, for whose judgement I would normally have the highest regard, have wondered whether the pass of six hearts might have been forcing! The Laws speak of information that may not be passed. The first question that needs to be answered, therefore, is whether the potential infractor has demonstrably acted on the basis of any information he has that should not have been passed. If he has done what he would demonstrably not have done in the presence of any information about his partner's hand, then he is (ipso facto) guiltless of any violation of Law, however fortunately his action might have turned out. The "principle" of which Marvin has spoken that a man should be ruled against who does what was not in the least suggested either by his own hand or by partner's mannerism, yet obtains a better result than he would have done by being sensible, is abject nonsense. Hirsch wrote: > No, we have to determine if the hesitation suggested the action over > another. If the action would not have occurred in the absence of the > hesitation, but was not suggested by the hesitation, it's still legal. I do not follow this. If an action would not have happened even if X happened, and could not be caused by X, then it would not (ipso facto) happen. "Why did you double?" "Well, it certainly wasn't because my partner hesitated." "What would you have done if he had not hesitated?" "I would have passed." "Then why did you double?" "There's a hole in my bucket, dear Liza..." What we have to do is determine whether the hesitation (or other mannerism) conveyed information. To do that, we need to examine what information the hesitator might have wished to convey. Then, if the partner's action could have been based on information that the hesitator might have wished to convey, we give an adverse ruling. > The hesitator's hand is irrelevant. Au contraire. > IMO, we look at the auction and > the hand opposite the hesitation, and see what the LAs are. Second things first. We do that after we have determined whether or not the player accused of acting in receipt of unauthorised information would so have acted had he possessed any information. If he would not, then there is no case. At least, there is no case for score adjustment. Eric Landau has suggested that there might be a case for disciplinary penalty. "You only did that because your partner hesitated; if he hadn't hesitated, you would never have done that, so you were trying to break L73 even though, because your partner's hesitation was on this occasion information-free, you did not succeed in actually gaining an advantage." Now Hirsch's argument starts to bite: "regardless of what partner actually had, you were trying to cater for what he would normally have for this mannerism, and that is illegal, so we will stick you with a penalty..." > We then > form a preliminary determination of the actions suggested over another > by the hesitation. Not the "hesitation". The "information". If there was none of the latter, then the former does not matter. These are very deep waters, but they are not uncharted: in essence, this argument is the one that caused a schism in the USA between the Rosenberg and the Goldman schools of thought. The question's very much too wide, and much too round, and much too hollow, and learned men on either side use arguments I cannot follow... (Belloc, though I'm surprised it hasn't appeared at the top of some of Grattan's). The answer, of course, is obvious. Every call should be made after a pause of exactly twenty seconds. Hammurabi, I beg to report to you... David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 26 17:36:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9Q7a6W19438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 17:36:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9Q7a1t19434 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 17:36:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id SAA04164 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 18:30:38 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 17:30:52 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Hammurabi To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 17:32:05 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 26/10/2000 05:27:38 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Grenside, Australia's CTD, has published a user-friendly guide to the Laws. In it he states that the most difficult task for a TD is *finding* the appropriate law or laws. Just such a case occurred when I was directing my club's walk-in pairs last night. Due to a pair's glacier slowness, I ordered them to postpone the bidding and play of the last board of a round until the end of the session. This is a common ruling, but out of curiosity I searched TFLB to find which law gave me this authority. The index was useless, as *Slow Play* was not mentioned (despite being the heading of L90B2). I then thought the relevant Law might be located in the logical place, Chapter III - Preparation and Progression. No luck. Eventually I unearthed L82B2, which is very cryptically written, not even mentioning slow play parenthetically. So if I rewrote the Laws, I would make only minor changes to the *content*, but major changes to the *format*. 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 Oct 26 17:43:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9Q7hLS19464 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 17:43:21 +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 e9Q7hEt19460 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 17:43:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.251] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13ohgt-0009ZY-00; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 08:43:11 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01c03f20$a3f946a0$fb5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , "BLML" References: <200010231540.IAA23684@mailhub.irvine.com> <000f01c03d29$a37b63a0$3ab301d5@D457300> <005701c03d59$295390e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <002901c03dc0$ecfd1cc0$0200000a@mindspring.com> <006e01c03e4e$0a7cdbe0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <001801c03e8e$c0513700$0200000a@mindspring.com> <001601c03eed$490e0240$2243063e@D457300> Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 08:44:09 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "Justice must not only be seen to be done but has to be seen to be believed." (Beachcomber) ==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+== ----- Original Message ----- From: David Burn To: BLML Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 2:36 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces --------- \x/ ---------- > You have to look at the hesitator's hand to see whether or not his > mannerism actually transmitted any kind of information at all about his > hand; if it could not have done, then his partner could not have had > available to him any information, let alone any unauthorised > information. In that case, Law 73 and Law 16 simply do not apply. It is > not good enough to say, as Grattan says, that the hesitation transmitted > the "information" that the hesitator was not sure what to do; only if > the hesitation transmits some meaningful information as to why the > hesitator was not sure what to do may a breach of L73 be held to have > taken place when the hesitator's partner acts. Were this not so, then > (as others have pointed out), a man with no obvious action following a > mannerism by partner might as well fold his tent, for he simply cannot > do the right thing. If what he does works, it will be disallowed and > something that would not work substituted for it; if what he does fails > to work, the score will quietly be entered on the traveller. > +=+ Any knowledge gained from partner's hesitation, as distinct from the meaning of his call, is UI and may not be used. If you know that partner was in doubt about passing and this suggests action other than a pass by you, then your chosen action must have no LA. ~ 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 Oct 26 17:57:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9Q7srQ19495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 17:54:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9Q7sjt19491 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 17:54:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA24619 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 09:54:41 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Oct 26 09:56:39 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 <01JVSERCS3A20015ZD@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 09:53:39 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 09:50:14 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 09:53:38 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Two Aces To: "'David Burn'" , BLML Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6F8@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This discussion has become very interesting again thanks to Daid B. again. It could be important even for the Code of Practice to be obeyed by appeal committees. What is unauthorized information? I have discussed this in another forum before and am puzzled myself. Let us assume we play with screens and one side bids carefully up to a high level. Having reached 5 diamonds (spades are trumps) the tray is moved to the other side and stays there for 2 minutes then coming back with 5 spades. Let us assume that bidding 6 spades now is considered to be a 2% choice by peers. This player bids 6 spades and the TD is called (6 spades makes). The facts are agreed. The TD does not allow the 6 spade bid. Everybody agrees. Now the same happens and only after his decision being made the TD is told that the player bidding 5 spades had been to the bathroom and returning didn't use more than 2 seconds to decide to bid 5 spades. Does this make any difference? It should don't you think? But for the player bidding 6 spades both situations are identical. To make it more complicated I want to add that without the delay when bidding 5 spades partner never would have bid 6 spades. Is this example different from the case without a screen where the player just doesn't pay attention and awakes after two minutes bidding 5 spades 'at once'? And what if he then excuses himself? I really have problems with this case. > Hirsch wrote: > > [MF] > > > So, you people think that if a player takes an action that would not > > > have been taken absent partner's hesitation, then you have to look > > at the hesitator's hand to see if L16A applies? If that's right, better > > get it into the laws David: > It is in the Laws. When a player has available to him unauthorised > information, he must avoid taking any advantage that might > accrue to his side. But when a player does something that he would never > have done had he possessed any information at all about his partner's hand, > then it is reasonable to assume that the player does not have available > to him any > information whatsoever. And if he does not have any information > available to him whatsoever, then he certainly does not have available > to him any unauthorised information. Only if this statement has the same meaning as: 'When the hesitation does transfer a suggestion it may not be followed if there is a logical alternative available'. I can't work with 'had he possessed any information at all'. It is impossible not to have any information at all after partner has made a call. But in itself the statement seems right. > You have to look at the hesitator's hand to see whether or not his > mannerism actually transmitted any kind of information at all > about his hand; if it could not have done, then his partner could not have had > available to him any information, let alone any unauthorised > information. Another example: W N E S 1S -p - 2S - p .....p - X - 4S - p p - p 4S makes of course. West hesitated and appears to have 12 points and tells you he was dreaming. (Looking into he brains the TD could have established he thought to have 16, counting an extra ace, which is kind of dreaming.) Is David now saying that looking into wests hand there can't be any unauthorized information? Just luck? East is not using U.I. since west did't have any reason to hesitate? I remember a case some time ago discussed here. Where somebody jumps to a crazy 6S after a strange action by his partner. For normal people there was no way to link this action to the call of 6S. Still I didn't like it at all. > (My English professor will forgive me that last sentence, for he > was prepared to concede that the important thing was to get the sense across, however vilely you had to express > yourself in order to do it.) I have met that professor. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 26 18:25:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9Q8PSe19534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 18:25:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9Q8PLt19530 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 18:25:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id KAA01519 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 10:25:07 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Oct 26 10:25:26 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 <01JVSFRGNEU40016FF@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 10:22:46 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 10:19:21 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 10:22:44 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Two Aces To: "'Hirsch Davis'" , BLML Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6FA@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 Hirsch: > No, we have to determine if the hesitation suggested the action over > another. If the action would not have occurred in the absence of the > hesitation, but was not suggested by the hesitation, it's still legal. > The hesitator's hand is irrelevant. How can this happen? A call because of a hesitation but not suggested by that hesitation? Yes I can imagine examples, but we are not talking about those, are we? Competitive auction, NS spades, EW diamonds. West bids 6D and north hesitates for a long time then doubles. South who intended to bid 6 spades feels barred. Annoyed and to teach his partner a lesson he now bids 7S (which he never intended to do). Of course it makes. For this discussion we assume that 6S was suggested by the hesitation and pass was a logical alternative. Hirsch now says that 7S is allowed. I have my doubts. But are there more convincing examples to support his statement? ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 26 21:46:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9QBisi19872 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 21:44:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9QBilt19868 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 21:44:48 +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 e9QC08N18975 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 08:00:09 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20001026074104.00b19920@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, 26 Oct 2000 07:43:17 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces In-Reply-To: <200010251534.IAA16965@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 11:34 AM 10/25/00, Adam wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > > Because (as I interpret the situation) there has been no violation, > > hence no grounds for adjustment under either law. That leaves C&E > > action, which is appropriate when a player has deliberately attempted > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > to violate the law, but has failed to competently manage to > actually do > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > so. (Two split infinitives back to back! A new record?) > >Didn't you mean to say "when a player has attempted to deliberately >violate the law"? You would have had an even better claim at a new >record. Too easy. Only counts if they're consecutive. 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 Oct 26 21:56:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9QBu9O19914 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 21:56:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9QBu3t19910 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 21:56:04 +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 e9QCCbk65000 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 08:12:37 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20001026074721.00ab1760@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, 26 Oct 2000 07:54:32 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces In-Reply-To: <00a301c03ea1$a978d8e0$fb981e18@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 12:25 PM 10/25/00, Marvin wrote: >Okay, "intend" was the wrong word, but you're missing the point. Some >people seem to believe that if a player's UI prompts partner to do >something s/he would not have done without the UI, the action taken must >accord with the hesitator's hand in order for an infraction to have >occurred. That is, if no accurate message, transmitted with or without >intent, has been received, then no UI infraction is possible because no >action has been "demonstrably" suggested. > >That is using one meaning of "suggest," which is to send, intentionally >or not, an accurate message. > >Another meaning, which I believe applies in L16A, is to cause an idea to >arise in another's mind "through association or natural connection of >ideas," as my dictionary puts it. A woman's actions may suggest >something to me that is neither intended nor inherent in her actions, >making it a misinterpretation on my part. Just because I misinterpreted, >one cannot say that the woman's actions suggested nothing to me. > >To repeat what I wrote elsewhere, I don't believe a hesitator's hand >should be examined to see if hir partner received the right message when >the partner has obviously taken an action that was based on (i.e., >demonstrably suggested by) the hesitation. All of this is true in principle. But what the woman's actions suggest to Marv would have to be suggested to most others as well to make the suggestion "demonstrable". I don't think anybody is saying that the "suggestion" must coincide with the hesitator's hand. Only that if it could have two possible but opposite meanings, and the hesitator's hand suggests one of those meanings while their partner's action suggests that they might have been expecting the other, it's going to be rather difficult to make the case for "demonstrable". 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 Oct 27 02:59:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9QGvkE20455 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 02:57:46 +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 e9QGvdt20450 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 02:57:39 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id RAA11599 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 17:57:27 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 17:57 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces 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: <000b01c03f20$a3f946a0$fb5908c3@dodona> Grattan wrote: > +=+ Any knowledge gained from partner's hesitation, as > distinct from the meaning of his call, is UI and may not > be used. If you know that partner was in doubt about > passing and this suggests action other than a pass by > you, then your chosen action must have no LA. This doesn't really help in the double/pass/sacrifice situation. Assume all three are reasonable options on a given hand. Assume further that pard hesitates and you consider it likely that he has either A: just short a marginal double, or B: just short a marginal sacrifice Passing will get you a score in the 40-60% range. Doubling will get you score in the 0-10% (if pard is A) or 90-100% (if pard is B) Sacrifice will reverse the scores for doubling. Neither "double" or "sacrifice" is suggested over pass, or over each other. All 3 actions have an equal matchpoint expectation. (Note if the state of your game indicates that a top is desperately required pass will no longer be an LA). However, if a player considers A to be significantly more likely than B then L73 obliges him to sacrifice [my take on the original case]. What I, and I believe DB, suggest is that when a player *correctly* diagnoses A and sacrifices there should be no adjustment - even if it turns out (eg due to lie of opponents cards) that the double/pass would have been less successful. This applies based even when the player concerned is relatively inexperienced and unable to express it in the terms above. Looked at another way try translating the hesitation into a verbal suggestion based on what a player might wish to say (without his opponents hearing) eg had East said "Pard, I have both minor suit aces and Qx in trumps - give this a crack if your hand is suitable". Would you adjust when West bid 6S - of course not. 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 Oct 27 03:25:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9QHPI020560 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 03:25:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9QHP8t20552 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 03:25:09 +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 13oqlz-000KWX-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 18:25:03 +0100 Message-ID: <2bq86aAigG+5EwKP@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 18:21:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces References: <4.3.2.7.1.20001025075014.00b1d580@127.0.0.1> <200010251534.IAA16965@mailhub.irvine.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20001026074104.00b19920@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20001026074104.00b19920@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 In article <4.3.2.7.1.20001026074104.00b19920@127.0.0.1>, Eric Landau writes >At 11:34 AM 10/25/00, Adam wrote: > >>Eric Landau wrote: >> >> > Because (as I interpret the situation) there has been no violation, >> > hence no grounds for adjustment under either law. That leaves C&E >> > action, which is appropriate when a player has deliberately attempted >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> > to violate the law, but has failed to competently manage to >> actually do >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> > so. (Two split infinitives back to back! A new record?) >> >>Didn't you mean to say "when a player has attempted to deliberately >>violate the law"? You would have had an even better claim at a new >>record. > >Too easy. Only counts if they're consecutive. > to really have to wantonly need to earnestly want to needlessly cause offence to the Brits is just bad manners. cheers john > >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/ -- 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 Oct 27 03:25:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9QHPJo20561 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 03:25:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9QHP8t20553 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 03:25:09 +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 13oqlz-000KWW-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 18:25:04 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 18:16:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces References: <200010231540.IAA23684@mailhub.irvine.com> <000f01c03d29$a37b63a0$3ab301d5@D457300> <005701c03d59$295390e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <002901c03dc0$ecfd1cc0$0200000a@mindspring.com> <006e01c03e4e$0a7cdbe0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <001801c03e8e$c0513700$0200000a@mindspring.com> <001601c03eed$490e0240$2243063e@D457300> In-Reply-To: <001601c03eed$490e0240$2243063e@D457300> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <001601c03eed$490e0240$2243063e@D457300>, David Burn writes snip discussion of use of UI > >These are very deep waters, but they are not uncharted: in essence, this >argument is the one that caused a schism in the USA between the >Rosenberg and the Goldman schools of thought. The question's very much >too wide, and much too round, and much too hollow, and learned men on >either side use arguments I cannot follow... (Belloc, though I'm >surprised it hasn't appeared at the top of some of Grattan's). > >The answer, of course, is obvious. Every call should be made after a >pause of exactly twenty seconds. Hammurabi, I beg to report to you... This would suit me well. I reckon a 4-bid auction for me is the height of science. The real scientists will get *loadsa* slow play penalties. I beg to report to you the scientists have revolted. > >David Burn >London, England > > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst "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 Oct 27 03:54:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9QHsIa20609 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 03:54:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9QHsBt20605 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 03:54:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4bg.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.17.112]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA07849; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 13:54:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00fc01c03f76$6393df20$7011f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "John Probst" , References: <4.3.2.7.1.20001025075014.00b1d580@127.0.0.1> <200010251534.IAA16965@mailhub.irvine.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20001026074104.00b19920@127.0.0.1> <2bq86aAigG+5EwKP@probst.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 13:58:45 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk but it is so eminently satifying to twit the lion's tail :-)) > > > to really have to wantonly need to earnestly want to needlessly cause > offence to the Brits is just bad manners. cheers john > > > 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 Fri Oct 27 04:10:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9QIAQp20642 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 04:10:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9QIAJt20638 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 04:10:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA12467; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 11:10:15 -0700 Message-Id: <200010261810.LAA12467@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 26 Oct 2000 17:57:00 PDT." Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 11:10:16 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-Meads wrote: > In-Reply-To: <000b01c03f20$a3f946a0$fb5908c3@dodona> > Grattan wrote: > > +=+ Any knowledge gained from partner's hesitation, as > > distinct from the meaning of his call, is UI and may not > > be used. If you know that partner was in doubt about > > passing and this suggests action other than a pass by > > you, then your chosen action must have no LA. > > This doesn't really help in the double/pass/sacrifice situation. > Assume all three are reasonable options on a given hand. > Assume further that pard hesitates and you consider it likely that he has > either > A: just short a marginal double, or > B: just short a marginal sacrifice > > Passing will get you a score in the 40-60% range. > Doubling will get you score in the 0-10% (if pard is A) or 90-100% (if > pard is B) > Sacrifice will reverse the scores for doubling. > > Neither "double" or "sacrifice" is suggested over pass, or over > each other. All 3 actions have an equal matchpoint expectation. > (Note if the state of your game indicates that a top is desperately > required pass will no longer be an LA). > > However, if a player considers A to be significantly more likely than B > then L73 obliges him to sacrifice [my take on the original case]. This is similar to a thought that occurred to me last night. Some people have opined that the UI suggests that something (either a penalty double or a sacrifice) will work better than a pass, and that therefore the hesitator's partner should pass. However, the same UI that suggests that a penalty double will work better than a pass *ALSO* suggests that a pass will work better than a save, and therefore passing is suggested over bidding by the UI. Or, if the UI suggests that a save is better than a pass, the same UI *ALSO* suggests that a pass will work better than a double, and therefore passing is suggested over doubling by the UI. Thus, no matter how you slice it, the UI suggests passing will work better than some alternative call. Therefore, by Law 16, passing is illegal, in marked contrast to the opinion that passing is the only legal option. Right? -- 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 Oct 27 04:14:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9QIE7r20666 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 04:14:07 +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 e9QIE0t20662 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 04:14:01 +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 LAA12535; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 11:13:56 -0700 Message-Id: <200010261813.LAA12535@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 26 Oct 2000 18:21:38 PDT." <2bq86aAigG+5EwKP@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 11:13:56 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: > In article <4.3.2.7.1.20001026074104.00b19920@127.0.0.1>, Eric Landau > writes > >At 11:34 AM 10/25/00, Adam wrote: > > > >>Eric Landau wrote: > >> > >> > Because (as I interpret the situation) there has been no violation, > >> > hence no grounds for adjustment under either law. That leaves C&E > >> > action, which is appropriate when a player has deliberately attempted > >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >> > to violate the law, but has failed to competently manage to > >> actually do > >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >> > so. (Two split infinitives back to back! A new record?) > >> > >>Didn't you mean to say "when a player has attempted to deliberately > >>violate the law"? You would have had an even better claim at a new > >>record. > > > >Too easy. Only counts if they're consecutive. > > > to really have to wantonly need to earnestly want to needlessly cause > offence to the Brits is just bad manners. cheers john I think we have a winner! Now on to a new contest. Let's see how many prepositions we can end our sentences with. -- 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 Oct 27 04:48:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9QImR920759 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 04:48:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net (hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9QImLt20755 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 04:48:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-001kslawrP250.dialsprint.net [158.252.182.12]) by hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA29654 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 11:48:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <200010261347540450.01092292@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <200010261813.LAA12535@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200010261813.LAA12535@mailhub.irvine.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.10.03.02 (3) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 13:47:54 -0500 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >I think we have a winner! > >Now on to a new contest. Let's see how many prepositions we can end >our sentences with. Aw, what did you bring a topic I don't want to pay attention to up for? (Peter Gill might say, "What did you bring a topic I don't want to pay attention to from Down Under up for?") Best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading "You tell the candidate you're going to vote for to come to my face and say my vote is a wasted vote. I don't think anyone who would say that should be in charge." -- Bill Murray -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 27 04:50:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9QIoiY20776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 04:50:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9QIoct20772 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 04:50:38 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id TAA02969 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 19:50:31 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 19:50 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Two Aces 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: kneebee@hotmail.com wrote: > >>defensive oriented hands - offensive hands > >>1 10 20 30 40 50 ... 100 > >> > This doesn't jive with me. If I held a hand that was so clearly > in favor of offense or defense, I wouldn't pass to let my partner > decide. I have enough information to make that decision myself. After > the slow pass, the ranges 1-10 and 81-100 are eliminated leaving the > 11-80 range. > You can also eliminate hands in the 20-70 range (no hesitation). I believe Richard had already eliminated the clear-cut bid/double hands from the range of partner's possible holdings to arrive at a similar answer. 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 Oct 27 04:53:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9QIrQg20795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 04:53:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9QIrLt20791 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 04:53:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 11:50:44 -0700 Message-ID: <027601c03f7d$dc338640$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20001026074721.00ab1760@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 11:44:50 -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 don't think anybody is saying that the "suggestion" must coincide > with the hesitator's hand. Yes they are. > Only that if it could have two possible but > opposite meanings, and the hesitator's hand suggests one of those > meanings while their partner's action suggests that they might have > been expecting the other, it's going to be rather difficult to make the > case for "demonstrable". Difficult, of course, and usually not possible. We are discussing theory. A player holds S-void H-AKJx D-xxxx C-xxxxx, with favorable vulnerability. The opponents crawl up to 4S, neither having shown more than four spades: 1S=2S=3H=3S=4S (four-card majors) Partner hesitates a long time and passes 4S. The player doubles, and beats 4S for +200 only because partner has a singleton heart and the hearts are 4-4, with the heart queen finessed by the singleton lead. Did partner have a trump stack? No, he had 2=1=5=5 and was considering a 4NT bid. Opener was thinking about slam, not whether to bid game. (S-AKxxxx H-10xxx D-AK C-A opposite S-Jxxxx H-Qxxx D-xx C-xx) Of course many of the player's peers might double on the bidding with this hand, but that just cannot be done after partner's slow pass. If L16A indeed does not treat this as an infraction, then it should be reworded. As I see it, you look at the player's hand and at the auction, then decide whether L16A was violated. If so, determine whether there was damage. If so, go to L12C. No reason to look at the partner's hand unless necessary for the damage issue. Some L16A words are being ignored: ..*may* suggest a call or play...;... *could* demonstrably have been suggested... Certainty is not required. Marv -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 27 05:25:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9QJOhc20865 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 05:24:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.email.msn.com (cpimssmtpu01.email.msn.com [207.46.181.26]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9QJObt20861 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 05:24:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from uymfdlvk - 63.23.33.4 by email.msn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 12:24:21 -0700 Message-ID: <169a01c03f81$dcd74380$c21f173f@uymfdlvk> Reply-To: "Chris Pisarra" From: "Chris Pisarra" To: Cc: References: <200010261813.LAA12535@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 12:20:51 -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 > Now on to a new contest. Let's see how many prepositions we can end > our sentences with. Daddy, what did you bring that book I didn't want to be read to out of, about Down Under, up for? 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 Fri Oct 27 05:41:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9QJepD20923 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 05:40:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9QJeit20919 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 05:40:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot28.domain6.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ka112382 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 05:29:48 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-012-p-228-85.tmns.net.au ([203.54.228.85]) by mail6.bigpond.com (Claudes-Particular-MailRouter V2.9c 11/491481); 27 Oct 2000 05:29:47 Message-ID: <01f101c03f8b$73116de0$b1df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 06:28:50 +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 Adam Beneschan wrote: >Thus, no matter how you slice it, the UI suggests passing >will work better than some alternative call. Therefore, by >Law 16, passing is illegal, in marked contrast to the opinion >that passing is the only legal option. Right? IMO only if the player has to simultaneously place both the Double and 6S bidding cards in front of him. :) A few years ago I worked with one of the brightest best-educated 22 year olds in Australia. He'd never heard of split infinitives, and then claimed that very modern usage had made them acceptable. 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 Oct 27 06:07:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9QK6n821001 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 06:06:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9QK6gt20996 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 06:06:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive41l.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.16.53]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA08536; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 16:06:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <002f01c03f88$e8064100$3510f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: References: <200010261813.LAA12535@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 16:11:06 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Is this intended to be the most ridiculous nonsense up with which we have ever had to put? Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 2:13 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces > > John Probst wrote: > > > In article <4.3.2.7.1.20001026074104.00b19920@127.0.0.1>, Eric Landau > > writes > > >At 11:34 AM 10/25/00, Adam wrote: > > > > > >>Eric Landau wrote: > > >> > > >> > Because (as I interpret the situation) there has been no violation, > > >> > hence no grounds for adjustment under either law. That leaves C&E > > >> > action, which is appropriate when a player has deliberately attempted > > >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > >> > to violate the law, but has failed to competently manage to > > >> actually do > > >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > >> > so. (Two split infinitives back to back! A new record?) > > >> > > >>Didn't you mean to say "when a player has attempted to deliberately > > >>violate the law"? You would have had an even better claim at a new > > >>record. > > > > > >Too easy. Only counts if they're consecutive. > > > > > to really have to wantonly need to earnestly want to needlessly cause > > offence to the Brits is just bad manners. cheers john > > I think we have a winner! > > Now on to a new contest. Let's see how many prepositions we can end > our sentences with. > > -- Adam > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 27 07:32:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9QLUhN21142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 07:30:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from adm.sci-nnov.ru (adm.sci-nnov.ru [195.122.226.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9QLUYt21138 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 07:30:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from toshiba4020cdt (ssvskdvf.p2p.sci-nnov.ru [195.122.225.21]) by adm.sci-nnov.ru (8.9.3/Dmiter-4.1-AGK-0.3) with SMTP id BAA22577 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 01:29:28 +0400 (MSD) Message-ID: <002701c03f93$b868eb40$15e17ac3@toshiba4020cdt> Reply-To: "Sergei Litvak" From: "Sergei Litvak" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20001025114656.007f8b10@pop.ulb.ac.be> <39F70513.CB5CB0B0@meteo.fr> Subject: [BLML] HUM or not? Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 01:28:38 +0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2417.2000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Under WBF System Policy system is classified as HUM if " ...By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length or shortage in a specified suit; or either length in one suit or length in another" The system meaning of the opening bids are: 1 heart - 16-18 HCP BAL(NT) or 16+HCP at least 5-4 in minors or 8-15 HCP 5-cards minor and 4card ANY major 1 spade - 12-15 HCP BAL(NT) or 18+HCP,6+card minor or, 8-15 HCP at least 5-4 in minors Does this mean HUM? Sergei Litvak. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 27 08:03:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9QM3Oa21213 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 08:03:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9QM3It21209 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 08:03:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 15:00:41 -0700 Message-ID: <02ae01c03f98$5dc5d900$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <01f101c03f8b$73116de0$b1df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 15:01:57 -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 Peter Gill wrote: > > A few years ago I worked with one of the brightest best-educated > 22 year olds in Australia. He'd never heard of split infinitives, and > then claimed that very modern usage had made them acceptable. > As they always have been, except in the opinion of ivory tower grammarian types who thought that Latin must be the model for good English grammar. Latin infinitives are unsplittable, of course. 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 Fri Oct 27 08:11:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9QMBFo21240 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 08:11:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f243.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.243]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9QMB9t21236 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 08:11:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 15:11:01 -0700 Received: from 172.139.142.202 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 22:11:01 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.139.142.202] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Off topic, language (Was: [BLML] Two Aces) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 15:11:01 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Oct 2000 22:11:01.0828 (UTC) FILETIME=[A04C6040:01C03F99] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Peter Gill" >A few years ago I worked with one of the brightest best-educated >22 year olds in Australia. He'd never heard of split infinitives, and >then claimed that very modern usage had made them acceptable. The purists will never give up, but the rest of us have realized that there are subtle differences in meaning conveyed by splitting or not splitting an infinitive. To needlessly revoke this license is to completely destroy a nuance generations have enjoyed. (To revoke needlessly this license is completely to destroy? *shudder* It doesn't even sound right anymore.) As far as all these "bring up for" examples, I challenge that up is an adverb in this usage. "Down under" is, of course, a noun. A genuine two-preposition ending, "Where is the guy I was with at?" I can't manage three. -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 Oct 27 09:10:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9QN9oP21341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 09:09:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9QN9jt21337 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 09:09:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id sa653580 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 23:34:02 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-006-p-218-62.tmns.net.au ([203.54.218.62]) by mail7.bigpond.com (Claudes-Well-Rounded-MailRouter V2.9c 15/11897848); 25 Oct 2000 23:34:00 Message-ID: <003601c03e90$841d4f60$3eda36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] discrepancy ruling Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 00:33:17 +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: >>A nice problem about diverging explanations arose last >>Saturday in the Belgian Teams Championships. >> >>Teams / South dealer / vul irrelevant / all competent players. >> >>Note that S/W are screenmates. >> >> J73 >> K105 >> AQJ2 >> J72 >> >> 94 AQ102 >> 7642 QJ3 >> K109864 75 >> A 10854 >> >> K865 >> A98 >> 3 >> KQ963 >> >> W N E S >> >> - - - 1C (1) >> p 1S (2) X (3 2C >> 2D (4) 2S (5) p 3C (6) >> p p p >> >>(1) either natural or any 16-19 NT >>(2) diamonds (exceptionally 3 cards) ; equivalent to a >>Walsh 1D response >>(3) spades >>(4) explained by W to S as natural ; by E to N as a >>cue-bid with spade support >>(5) N intends to asks about stoppers / controls in spades >>(6) but South has been told that E/W have two suits : S and D; >>in such a case, the cue-bid of 2S is affirmative in spades >>and interrogative in diamonds >> >>N/S should make 3NT. They call the director and argue that >>the diverging explanations provoked their misunderstanding >>about the meaning of 2S. >> >>How do you rule ? >> Martin Sinot wrote: > >NS' arguments look like common bridge knowledge to me: >if opponents show one suit, then you ask for stoppers, if >they show two, then you show stoppers. >Therefore, I rule that NS are indeed damaged by the MI: >if NS both had the same information (West's or East's - >note that it does not matter which of the two gave the >right info), then either North would have shown the >diamond stopper instead of asking for a spade stopper, >or South would have shown a spade stopper instead of >denying a diamond stopper. Either way NS will reach 3NT. >I therefore adjust the score to 3NT made for NS. I would add one proviso. If N and S's explanations of 1S are not identical, then this may have provoked EW's differing explanations. For example, if South explained 1S as 3+D but North explained 1S as 4+D (exceptionally 3+D), then EW's differing explanations are understandable and are actually caused by NS. This should be easy to check by glancing at the written explanations. 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 Oct 27 10:39:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9R0dCE21518 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 10:39:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9R0d7t21514 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 10:39:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from medvesajt.anu.edu.au (medvesajt.anu.edu.au [150.203.35.241]) by rsc.anu.edu.au (8.10.0/8.10.0) with SMTP id e9R0d6K13298 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 11:39:07 +1100 (EST) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 11:39:05 +1100 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@medvesajt.anu.edu.au To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] HUM or not? In-Reply-To: <002701c03f93$b868eb40$15e17ac3@toshiba4020cdt> 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, 27 Oct 2000, Sergei Litvak wrote: > Under WBF System Policy system is classified as HUM if > " ...By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either > length or shortage in a specified suit; or either length in one suit or > length in another" > > The system meaning of the opening bids are: > 1 heart - 16-18 HCP BAL(NT) or 16+HCP at least 5-4 in minors or 8-15 HCP > 5-cards minor and 4card ANY major > 1 spade - 12-15 HCP BAL(NT) or 18+HCP,6+card minor or, 8-15 HCP at least 5-4 > in minors > > Does this mean HUM? I think so. For 1H, there is no requirement for a "specified suit" to be necessarily short or long so it is OK under the first clause. The second is trickier. If the 1H agreement were only "8-15HCP 5+m 4M" then it would clearly be HUM... it has length in either H or in S and it has length in either C or D. I can't see how adding more options such that the hand can also be balanced or have a longer minor suit can reduce the HUM nature of this part of the requirements. Likewise I think 1S is HUM because of the "18+HCP, 6+m".. since there is length in C or length in D. I expect that the first clause of the regulations were meant to cover cases like the "Suspensor" 1H and 1S openings which show 8-12HCP and either 0-2 in the suit or 6+ in the suit... so partner "raises" on 1-2 card support, passes with 6-card support and pleases himself with 3-5card support :) 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 Oct 27 11:05:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9R15TR21590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 11:05:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.a2000.nl (phoenix.a2000.nl [62.108.1.203]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9R15Nt21586 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 11:05:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 13oxxN-000593-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 03:05:17 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20001027030514.00ff8e20@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 03:05:14 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: [BLML] HUM or not? In-Reply-To: <002701c03f93$b868eb40$15e17ac3@toshiba4020cdt> References: <3.0.6.32.20001025114656.007f8b10@pop.ulb.ac.be> <39F70513.CB5CB0B0@meteo.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk looks to me (in holland) hum (it doesnt guarantee at least a 3-cd in the named suit) and can be wak regards anton At 01:28 AM 10/27/2000 +0400, you wrote: >Under WBF System Policy system is classified as HUM if >" ...By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either >length or shortage in a specified suit; or either length in one suit or >length in another" > >The system meaning of the opening bids are: >1 heart - 16-18 HCP BAL(NT) or 16+HCP at least 5-4 in minors or 8-15 HCP >5-cards minor and 4card ANY major >1 spade - 12-15 HCP BAL(NT) or 18+HCP,6+card minor or, 8-15 HCP at least 5-4 >in minors > >Does this mean HUM? > >Sergei Litvak. > > > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Fri Oct 27 19:47:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9R9k6Y22493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 19:46:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f200.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9R9k0t22489 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 19:46:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 02:45:52 -0700 Received: from 192.160.109.219 by lw7fd.law7.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 09:45:52 GMT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.219] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 09:45:52 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Oct 2000 09:45:52.0749 (UTC) FILETIME=[B20611D0:01C03FFA] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Peter Gill" >To: "BLML" >Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces >Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 06:28:50 +1000 > >Adam Beneschan wrote: > >Thus, no matter how you slice it, the UI suggests passing > >will work better than some alternative call. Therefore, by > >Law 16, passing is illegal, in marked contrast to the opinion > >that passing is the only legal option. Right? > > >IMO only if the player has to simultaneously place both >the Double and 6S bidding cards in front of him. :) > >A few years ago I worked with one of the brightest best-educated >22 year olds in Australia. He'd never heard of split infinitives, and >then claimed that very modern usage had made them acceptable. > >Peter Gill >Australia. > > There is a case for regarding the usage of split infinitives as obsolete, but not to have heard of them? In grammar, as in so many fields, if you're going to break the rules you should know what they are to start with. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 27 20:36:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9RAZxj22590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 20:35:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9RAZrt22586 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 20:35:54 +1000 (EST) Received: by esebh01nok with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 13:25:14 +0300 Message-ID: From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] HUM or not? Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 12:39:07 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: EXT Sergei Litvak [mailto:fox@pent.sci-nnov.ru] > Sent: 27. October 2000 0:29 > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: [BLML] HUM or not? > > > Under WBF System Policy system is classified as HUM if > " ...By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level > shows either > length or shortage in a specified suit; or either length in > one suit or > length in another" > > The system meaning of the opening bids are: > 1 heart - 16-18 HCP BAL(NT) or 16+HCP at least 5-4 in minors > or 8-15 HCP > 5-cards minor and 4card ANY major > 1 spade - 12-15 HCP BAL(NT) or 18+HCP,6+card minor or, 8-15 > HCP at least 5-4 > in minors Certainly it quellifies: they don't promise length in either suit. Adding other options changes nothing once at least one of them qualifies the system as HUM. Otherwise you could play sth like 1H - 8-12, 0-2 or 6+H or 35PC 5+S and claim it not to be a HUM. 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 Oct 27 21:53:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9RBfKi22762 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 21:41:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9RBfEt22758 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 21:41:14 +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 NAA16338; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 13:39:01 +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 NAA05095; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 13:40:59 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001027135140.0080a100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 13:51:40 +0200 To: Mark Abraham , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] HUM or not? In-Reply-To: References: <002701c03f93$b868eb40$15e17ac3@toshiba4020cdt> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:39 27/10/00 +1100, you wrote: >Likewise I think 1S is HUM because of the "18+HCP, 6+m".. since there is >length in C or length in D. AG : the jurisprudency tells that those interdictions do not apply to strong hands (else, what about a Benjy 2C ?) >I expect that the first clause of the regulations were meant to cover >cases like the "Suspensor" 1H and 1S openings which show 8-12HCP and >either 0-2 in the suit or 6+ in the suit... so partner "raises" on 1-2 >card support, passes with 6-card support and pleases himself with 3-5card >support :) AG : you're right. A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 28 02:44:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9RGgDr23480 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 02:42:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9RGg4t23476 for ; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 02:42:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcauhv8.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.71.232]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA23892 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 12:41:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <002d01c04034$aa98edc0$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: Subject: Re: Off topic, language (Was: [BLML] Two Aces) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 12:40:50 -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: "Todd Zimnoch" To: Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 6:11 PM Subject: Off topic, language (Was: [BLML] Two Aces) > The purists will never give up, but the rest of us have realized > that there are subtle differences in meaning conveyed by splitting or > not splitting an infinitive. To needlessly revoke this license is to > completely destroy a nuance generations have enjoyed. (To revoke > needlessly this license is completely to destroy? *shudder* It doesn't > even sound right anymore.) > We must first determine if the revoke has been established. 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 Oct 28 03:35:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9RHYni23618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 03:34:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.121]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9RHYht23614 for ; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 03:34:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.0.2] (roc-24-93-16-55.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.55]) by mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA15828 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 13:26:15 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 13:33:46 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >In grammar, as in so many fields, if you're going to break the rules >you should know what they are to start with. Grammar has rules? :-) 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/AwUBOfm8sb2UW3au93vOEQLyVwCg1Zb6DBilo6ZAcVyYlh+i8LA7IskAn1iD +lw8jMkjpna5SBvq6MbuhC1a =s1PH -----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 Oct 28 04:28:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9RISBu23691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 04:28:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9RIS4t23687 for ; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 04:28:05 +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 OAA02460 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 14:31:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200010271831.OAA02460@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces [now OT] Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <2bq86aAigG+5EwKP@probst.demon.co.uk> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20001025075014.00b1d580@127.0.0.1> <200010251534.IAA16965@mailhub.irvine.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20001026074104.00b19920@127.0.0.1> <2bq86aAigG+5EwKP@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 14:31:17 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" : >In article <4.3.2.7.1.20001026074104.00b19920@127.0.0.1>, Eric Landau > writes >>At 11:34 AM 10/25/00, Adam wrote: >> >>>Didn't you mean to say "when a player has attempted to deliberately >>>violate the law"? You would have had an even better claim at a new >>>record. >> >>Too easy. Only counts if they're consecutive. >> >to really have to wantonly need to earnestly want to needlessly cause >offence to the Brits is just bad manners. cheers john Oh, but so much fun! Silly British. Much too sensitive. Sentence fragments, anyone? Wheee! Incincerely, of course. 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 Oct 28 05:19:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9RJITI23753 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Oct 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 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 e9RJINt23749 for ; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 05:18:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4gd.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.18.13]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA28357; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 15:18:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00ba01c0404b$540f7d40$0d12f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Todd Zimnoch" , References: Subject: Re: Off topic, language (Was: [BLML] Two Aces) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 15:22:58 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk To revoke this license needlessly is to destroy completely... What is wrong or awkward about that? I recognize that colloquial speech may often benefit in clarity and in its informality by allowing a split infinitive. But this is a sorry example of your point. I suspect Peter was joshing us when he pretended never to have heard of a split infinitive though. I think correct usage preceded transport to Botany Bay. :-) In fact some were, I believe, transported for offenses far more ephemeral that offending grammar purists. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd Zimnoch" > >From: "Peter Gill" > >A few years ago I worked with one of the brightest best-educated > >22 year olds in Australia. He'd never heard of split infinitives, and > >then claimed that very modern usage had made them acceptable. > > The purists will never give up, but the rest of us have realized > that there are subtle differences in meaning conveyed by splitting or > not splitting an infinitive. To needlessly revoke this license is to > completely destroy a nuance generations have enjoyed. (To revoke > needlessly this license is completely to destroy? *shudder* It doesn't > even sound right anymore.) > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 28 05:46:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9RJjnT23773 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 05:45:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9RJjft23769 for ; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 05:45:41 +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 13pFRT-0003GE-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 20:45:34 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 11:47:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6F8@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6F8@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: >This discussion has become very interesting again thanks to Daid B. again. >It could be important even for the Code of Practice to be obeyed by appeal >committees. > >What is unauthorized information? >I have discussed this in another forum before and am puzzled myself. Let us >assume we play with screens and one side bids carefully up to a high level. >Having reached 5 diamonds (spades are trumps) the tray is moved to the >other side and stays there for 2 minutes then coming back with 5 spades. Let >us assume that bidding 6 spades now is considered to be a 2% choice by >peers. This player bids 6 spades and the TD is called (6 spades makes). The >facts are agreed. The TD does not allow the 6 spade bid. Everybody agrees. >Now the same happens and only after his decision being made the TD is told >that the player bidding 5 spades had been to the bathroom and returning >didn't use more than 2 seconds to decide to bid 5 spades. Does this make any >difference? It should don't you think? But for the player bidding 6 spades >both situations are identical. To make it more complicated I want to add >that without the delay when bidding 5 spades partner never would have bid 6 >spades. >Is this example different from the case without a screen where the player >just doesn't pay attention and awakes after two minutes bidding 5 spades 'at >once'? And what if he then excuses himself? >I really have problems with this case. If you know that your partner has spent two minutes thinking about a hand then you have UI about the hand and your actions are limited by L73C and L16A. In practice, you do not know for certain that partner is thinking about the hand from a long pause: he could have disappeared from the other side of a screen: without a screen he could have failed to realise it was his turn. On one occasion at Liverpool BC a lady took a very long time to bid. After the hand her partner asked her why, to which she replied: "Sorry, I was thinking what I would have for dinner tomorrow." However, while there are theoretical problems with the transmission of UI I believe the practical approach should be used for rulings: when there is an unexplained hesitation then there is an appearance of doubt and players and TDs should act as though there was doubt. In UI situations I think it is often helpful to consider what a cheat would do. That does not mean that I think players are cheating, but it provides a comparison. Now, when partner hesitates, a cheat assumes he has something to think about, and if he can work out what he expects it to be he acts on that. Occasionally he is wrong when he has misread what caused the hesitation. Similarly players and TDs must make the same assumption as to what a hesitation shows. -- 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 Oct 28 05:48:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9RJmE923785 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 05:48:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9RJm8t23781 for ; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 05:48:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13pFTv-0003GA-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 20:48:05 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 02:52:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces References: <01f101c03f8b$73116de0$b1df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <01f101c03f8b$73116de0$b1df36cb@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: >A few years ago I worked with one of the brightest best-educated >22 year olds in Australia. He'd never heard of split infinitives, and >then claimed that very modern usage had made them acceptable. I find that a common argument for all sorts of bad English. Just recently someone told me that *no-one* distinguishes between 'shall' and 'will' [**] "any more". I said that I did, and got called a pedant, which I took as a compliment. [**] An American in the Thames said "I shall drown and no-one will save me!" so we let him do so. -- 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 Oct 28 07:25:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9RLLct23830 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 07:21:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9RLLWt23826 for ; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 07:21:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ives19.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.112.41]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA19199 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 17:21:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001027172043.0122c138@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 17:20:43 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces In-Reply-To: <002901c03dc0$ecfd1cc0$0200000a@mindspring.com> References: <200010231540.IAA23684@mailhub.irvine.com> <000f01c03d29$a37b63a0$3ab301d5@D457300> <005701c03d59$295390e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:47 AM 10/24/2000 -0400, Hirsch wrote: >> Example: A player hesitates because s/he wanted to bid, then passes, >and >> hir hand is not a doubling sort of hand. Hir partner thinks a double >was >> being considered, and doubles without a doubling sort of hand. >Thanks to >> extraordinarily good luck and some unskillful play by declarer, the >> contract is defeated. There was damage, redress is due. >?? > >What exactly is the infraction for which you are proposing an >adjustment? Check me to see if I have this right. There is UI. The >UI suggests that option A will be more successful than option B. The >player selects option B. If an ethical law-abiding player took this >course of action, that would be the end of it. However, you are >saying that if our player misinterpreted the UI, so that this player >believed that option B was suggested, and that player now takes option >B, the opponents are due redress? > >I agree that the player who takes this action needs a lecture on UI >(if we even find out about this), and bears watching in the future. >However, it's hard to see how we can penalize one player, when the >bridge action taken is exactly the same legal one that would be taken >by a law-abiding ethical player. IMO the Laws require that we >penalize illegal actions, not impure motivation or bad bridge >judgement. > This last is an important (and too frequently forgotten) point. But I think you have missed Marv's point. Whether or not it would possible to adjudicate such an issue under the Laws, the NOS is entitled to redress _in principle_, because the doubler has taken an action that _they believe_ is suggested by UI, contrary to the requirements of L73, and the NOS has suffered in consequence. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 28 07:33:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9RLUgL23843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 07:30:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9RLUbt23839 for ; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 07:30:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 14:27:59 -0700 Message-ID: <001801c0405c$fdfa92c0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 14:29:25 -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: > Grammar has rules? :-) No. Charlton Laird, *The Miracle of Language*: Grammar is not a set of rules; it is something inherent in the language, and language cannot exist without it. It can be discovered, but not invented. 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 Oct 28 07:36:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9RLWJI23849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 07:32:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9RLWDt23845 for ; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 07:32:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ives19.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.112.41]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA25392 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 17:32:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001027173126.0122c1b0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 17:31:26 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces In-Reply-To: <003501c03d92$00433d20$e85408c3@dodona> References: <02cd01c03d41$5aac8c40$87d436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk There is a large class of bids that systemically express uncertainty, and require partner to make a determination as to the correct course. An excellent example is the forcing pass. Although this is probably an overused tool, it is still an important weapon in competitive bidding. The slow non-forcing pass of a high-level bid in a competitive auction serves much the same purpose, although obviously unintentionally in most cases. It expresses serious doubt about allowing the opponents to play undoubled, and implicitly invites partner to take action. Can anyone seriously dispute that this, too, would be a useful tool to add to one's arsenal? Is anyone prepared to argue that it is or should be legal to bid this way? But this is, in essence, the position of those who argue that the hesitation must suggest one specific action (i.e., either doubling or bidding, but not both) in order to adjust under L16. 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 Oct 28 07:58:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9RLshs23872 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 07:54:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9RLsbt23868 for ; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 07:54:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 14:52:00 -0700 Message-ID: <002201c04060$588197e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <00ba01c0404b$540f7d40$0d12f7a5@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: Off topic, language (Was: [BLML] Two Aces) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 14:44:57 -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 > To revoke this license needlessly is to destroy completely... > > What is wrong or awkward about that? I recognize that colloquial speech may > often benefit in clarity and in its informality by allowing a split > infinitive. But this is a sorry example of your point. > Craig wants to forbid flatly split infinitives in formal writing and speech, evidently. Like many others, he tries absurdly to exaggerate the necessity for such a rule; in consequence, the reader may tend badly to underrate him. (Plagiarized from Fowler's *Modern English* usage, as examples of what he calls "the tyrannous rule") Marv :)) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 28 08:20:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9RMFuu23894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 08:15:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9RMFjt23890 for ; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 08:15:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA11077; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 15:15:34 -0700 Message-Id: <200010272215.PAA11077@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 27 Oct 2000 17:31:26 PDT." <3.0.1.32.20001027173126.0122c1b0@pop.mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 15:15:34 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Mike Dennis wrote: > There is a large class of bids that systemically express uncertainty, and > require partner to make a determination as to the correct course. An > excellent example is the forcing pass. Although this is probably an > overused tool, it is still an important weapon in competitive bidding. > > The slow non-forcing pass of a high-level bid in a competitive auction > serves much the same purpose, although obviously unintentionally in most > cases. It expresses serious doubt about allowing the opponents to play > undoubled, and implicitly invites partner to take action. Can anyone > seriously dispute that this, too, would be a useful tool to add to one's > arsenal? Yes, I can dispute this, and already have. You're suggesting a tool that says, "Partner, I doubt that allowing the opponents to play undoubled is a good idea, and that if you either save or double, depending on which one you think is right, we will probably get a better score." As I said previously, I don't think there is any hand that could use such a tool. Now, if (because of the auction or some other factor) the slow pass tends to suggest a save, that's another matter. Similarly if a slow pass tends to suggest a double. -- 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 Oct 28 09:15:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9RNB6J23936 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 09:11:06 +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 (f97.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.97]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9RNB1t23932 for ; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 09:11:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 16:10:54 -0700 Received: from 134.134.248.27 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 23:10:53 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.27] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 16:10:53 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Oct 2000 23:10:54.0096 (UTC) FILETIME=[27DEB900:01C0406B] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Adam Beneschan >Yes, I can dispute this, and already have. You're suggesting a tool >that says, "Partner, I doubt that allowing the opponents to play >undoubled is a good idea, and that if you either save or double, >depending on which one you think is right, we will probably get a >better score." As I said previously, I don't think there is any hand >that could use such a tool. I do; I can think of plenty. 4H makes; 4S doubled goes for more than 800. If my slow pass would convince partner to bid, I want to bid as quickly as possible. The slow pass is now useful for all other hands. It tells partner that not both options are wrong, which is something partner does not always know. Oh, and let's pass the buck with a slow double after the slow pass as well. -Todd (and yet still in favor of being allowed the choice.) _________________________________________________________________________ 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 Oct 28 09:50:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9RNjmS24015 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Oct 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 hotmail.com (f209.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.209]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9RNjht24011 for ; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 09:45:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 16:45:35 -0700 Received: from 134.134.248.27 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 23:45:35 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.27] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Off topic, language (Was: [BLML] Two Aces) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 16:45:35 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Oct 2000 23:45:35.0520 (UTC) FILETIME=[007ED200:01C04070] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk As a reponse to someone who asked me to come up with a specific example where the split/non-split infinitive changes the meaning of a sentence, I provided this example. The objective of the game is not to win. The objective of the game is to not win. The first implies some other objective, perhaps to have fun. I'd wager some number of people would expect a 'but' to follow win. I do. The second implies only to lose. This is my take on all games involving liquor. The objective of the game is to win, not! I do believe there's a real difference between one and the other. If I were really going to go against the system, I would note that 'to' and its verb often go out separately. I must go. I play bridge better now than I used to. 'Go' is infinitive and the final 'to' in the second example implies the verb. I see no reason an adverb can't come betwixt the two as they are not inseparable. I don't think that 'to' is actually part of the infinitive, but that's a hair-splitting exercise for other people. -Todd (Modern usage, of course, allows for the splitting of any word or even syllable to allow the insertion of an expletive.) >From: "Marvin L. French" >Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" >To: >Subject: Re: Off topic, language (Was: [BLML] Two Aces) >Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 14:44:57 -0700 > >Craig Senior > > > To revoke this license needlessly is to destroy completely... > > > > What is wrong or awkward about that? I recognize that colloquial >speech may > > often benefit in clarity and in its informality by allowing a >split > > infinitive. But this is a sorry example of your point. > > >Craig wants to forbid flatly split infinitives in formal writing and >speech, evidently. Like many others, he tries absurdly to exaggerate >the necessity for such a rule; in consequence, the reader may tend >badly to underrate him. ... may tend to underrate him badly? Split infinitives or not, word order is still important. >(Plagiarized from Fowler's *Modern English* usage, as examples of >what he calls "the tyrannous rule") > >Marv :)) _________________________________________________________________________ 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 Oct 28 11:15:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9S1DNt24182 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 11:13:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9S1DHt24177 for ; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 11:13:17 +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 SAA14368; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 18:13:11 -0700 Message-Id: <200010280113.SAA14368@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 27 Oct 2000 16:10:53 PDT." Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 18:13:13 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd wrote: > >From: Adam Beneschan > >Yes, I can dispute this, and already have. You're suggesting a tool > >that says, "Partner, I doubt that allowing the opponents to play > >undoubled is a good idea, and that if you either save or double, > >depending on which one you think is right, we will probably get a > >better score." As I said previously, I don't think there is any hand > >that could use such a tool. > > I do; I can think of plenty. 4H makes; 4S doubled goes for more > than 800. If my slow pass would convince partner to bid, I want to bid > as quickly as possible. The slow pass is now useful for all other hands. > It tells partner that not both options are wrong, which is something > partner does not always know. I don't think this meets the criteria. If you use this "tool", a slow pass, when you have a hand that's thinking of saving, partner still has to guess what you mean, and if he makes a penalty double (without having the contract beaten in his hand), you're probably worse off than if he had passed. So it's not a good hand for the "tool". Similarly, if you use the slow pass when you have a hand that's thinking of making a penalty double, partner has to guess, and he's likely going to make things worse if he bids on. Once again, it's not a good hand for the "tool". Of course, if you use the tool in a situation where partner is likely to guess right for some reason, then we have a case where the slow pass demonstrably suggests doubling, or a case where the slow pass demonstrably suggests saving; and now L16 clearly applies. -- 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 Oct 28 12:26:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9S2OMw24309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 12:24:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9S2OGt24305 for ; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 12:24:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-2ivetb4.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.117.100]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA16650 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 22:24:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001027222326.01231cf0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 22:23:26 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces In-Reply-To: <200010272215.PAA11077@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 03:15 PM 10/27/2000 PDT, Adam wrote: > >> The slow non-forcing pass of a high-level bid in a competitive auction >> serves much the same purpose, although obviously unintentionally in most >> cases. It expresses serious doubt about allowing the opponents to play >> undoubled, and implicitly invites partner to take action. Can anyone >> seriously dispute that this, too, would be a useful tool to add to one's >> arsenal? > >Yes, I can dispute this, and already have. You're suggesting a tool >that says, "Partner, I doubt that allowing the opponents to play >undoubled is a good idea, and that if you either save or double, >depending on which one you think is right, we will probably get a >better score." As I said previously, I don't think there is any hand >that could use such a tool. Then allow me to introduce you to the Forcing Pass. It conveys virtually this identical message: "Partner, I'm sure that defending this contract undoubled is not our best spot. Double or continue, but do not pass." Now I agree that it is not _exactly_ the same, as more information is present in the Forcing Pass, but it is not so very different. And thousands of players use this very treatment every day, quite legally. Of course thousands more use the "quasi-forcing" pass like the one we have been discussing, although I am not so sure about its legality. 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 Oct 28 15:41:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9S5bSa24761 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 15:37:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9S5bKt24756 for ; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 15:37:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.140.245] (helo=D457300) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13pOg7-00055m-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 06:37:15 +0100 Message-ID: <000901c040a0$e539f660$f58c01d5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: <3.0.1.32.20001027222326.01231cf0@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 06:35:30 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Michael wrote: > >Yes, I can dispute this, and already have. You're suggesting a tool > >that says, "Partner, I doubt that allowing the opponents to play > >undoubled is a good idea, and that if you either save or double, > >depending on which one you think is right, we will probably get a > >better score." As I said previously, I don't think there is any hand > >that could use such a tool. > > Then allow me to introduce you to the Forcing Pass. It conveys virtually > this identical message: "Partner, I'm sure that defending this contract > undoubled is not our best spot. Double or continue, but do not pass." Now I > agree that it is not _exactly_ the same, as more information is present in > the Forcing Pass, but it is not so very different. And thousands of players > use this very treatment every day, quite legally. Of course thousands more > use the "quasi-forcing" pass like the one we have been discussing, although > I am not so sure about its legality. This isn't quite what Adam meant, I don't think. A forcing pass does not mean "save or double", for (as Adam rightly says), nothing could sensibly mean that. A forcing pass means "bid higher to make, or double", which is not the same thing at all. Sometimes, of course, it happens that the forcing pass means in effect "choose between -790 and -800", but bridge is not always an easy game. A side issue appears to have arisen arbour which I would say this: it is not possible to split infinitives in Latin (and a number of other languages(, but we do not speak Latin. In English, which we do speak, it is possible to split an infinitive. But such a construction is awkward, and its use is appropriate only: for emphasis, or to avoid ambiguity, or to avoid an inelegance greater than the split infinitive itself. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 28 15:52:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9S5p2I24801 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 15:51:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9S5out24797 for ; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 15:50:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 22:45:50 -0700 Message-ID: <004601c040a2$8bc50b40$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Off topic, language (Was: [BLML] Two Aces) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 22:46:28 -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 Todd Zimnoch wrote: >I don't think that 'to' is actually part > of the infinitive, but that's a hair-splitting exercise for other people. > Quite right, Todd. The dictionaries split that hair. "To" introduces an infinitive, is used as a sign or accompaniment of the infinitive, but is not actually part of the infinitive. 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 Oct 28 17:22:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9S7KrE24943 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 17:20:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.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 e9S7Kmt24939 for ; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 17:20:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 00:18:12 -0700 Message-ID: <008f01c040af$72a75fc0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Off topic, language (Was: [BLML] Two Aces) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 00:19:38 -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 Todd Zimnoch wrote: > As far as all these "bring up for" examples, I challenge that up is > an adverb in this usage. "Down under" is, of course, a noun. > > A genuine two-preposition ending, "Where is the guy I was with at?" > I can't manage three. The Naughty Preposition, by Morris Bishop, in *The New Yorker*, 1947: I lately lost a preposition; It hid, I thought, beneath my chair; And angrily I cried,"Perdition! Up from out of in under there!" Correctness is my vade mecum, And straggling phrases I abhor, And yet I wonder, "What should he come Up from out of in under for? 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 Oct 28 20:37:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9SAZ1q25214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 20:35:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9SAYqt25210 for ; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 20:34:53 +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 13pTJr-000BcG-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 10:34:48 +0000 Message-ID: <9$KOedAOFh+5EwYk@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 00:35:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces References: <01f101c03f8b$73116de0$b1df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >[**] An American in the Thames said "I shall drown and no-one will save >me!" so we let him do so. > Who wrote this garbage? I can only assume Quango has been at the computer again. [**] An American in the Thames said "I will drown and no-one shall save me!" so we let him do so. This seems to be what I intended. Bad week. -- 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 Oct 29 03:07:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9SG43B25791 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 03:04:03 +1100 (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 e9SG3ut25787 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 03:03:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.0.2] (roc-24-93-16-55.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.55]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA21084 for ; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 11:58:46 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <008f01c040af$72a75fc0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> References: <008f01c040af$72a75fc0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 11:54:34 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Off topic, language (Was: [BLML] Two Aces) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >The Naughty Preposition, by Morris Bishop, in *The New Yorker*, 1947: Now, that's a keeper! :-) 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/AwUBOfr45b2UW3au93vOEQLmUQCgpVk+xG1DOk7tOK+o+0GygAinLMgAoMNf FwehI7BQCdi6juBMfHV91YGo =HXjU -----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 Oct 29 05:18:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9SIFFr26027 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 05:15:16 +1100 (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 e9SIF9t26023 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 05:15:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from eitan (ras3-p60.nt.netvision.net.il [62.0.171.60]) by alpha.netvision.net.il (8.9.3/8.8.6) with SMTP id UAA11016 for ; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 20:15:03 +0200 (IST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20001028201427.0083b4b0@netvision.net.il> X-Sender: moranl@netvision.net.il X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 20:14:27 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Eitan Levy Subject: Re: Off topic, language (Was: [BLML] Two Aces) In-Reply-To: <008f01c040af$72a75fc0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk While we're on this subject, here's a quote from this week's e-mail column of World Wide Words by Michael Quinion quote The belief is in the same category as not splitting an infinitive, or not ending a sentence with a preposition, other invented rules of eighteenth century grammarians that have been ignored by a large proportion of writers of good English. These rules all grew out of formal arguments about what ought to be right; they didn't take into account the way the language actually works, nor how people actually use it. unquote Eitan Levy -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 29 06:58:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9SJtPf26188 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 06:55:25 +1100 (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 e9SJtHt26181 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 06:55:18 +1100 (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 13pc4O-00070q-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 20:55:13 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 12:09:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Virus MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thanks for the virus, chaps. Thanks also to the English Bridge Union and the National Physical Laboratory for recognising the virus and pointing it out. OK, I am back, I did not enjoy it. Please do not give me another 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 Sun Oct 29 06:58:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9SJtXt26189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 06:55:33 +1100 (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 e9SJtHt26180 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 06:55:18 +1100 (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 13pc4O-00070r-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 20:55:14 +0100 Message-ID: <+AdxgZAzSr+5Ewbg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 12:12:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Law 4 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Owing to the virus and other matters I rather lost the argument here. Last I remember I posted something, and there were some replies, not all relevant. I thought I would just argue one or two of the points separately, and let me see whether we can agree on some of the points. First, the question of a BL. The TD makes a decision to allow a team to play in a certain way. After the session has ended, another team attempts to get this team disqualified for doing what the TD had allowed. Do you think this acceptable conduct? Would you do 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 Sun Oct 29 08:49:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9SLjET26408 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 08:45:14 +1100 (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 e9SLjAt26404 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 08:45:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot06.domain1.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id wa374162 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 07:45:16 +1000 Received: from WYBH-T-005-p-89-250.tmns.net.au ([203.54.89.250]) by mail1.bigpond.com (Claudes-Predictive-MailRouter V2.9c 1/820313); 29 Oct 2000 07:45:13 Message-ID: <00e801c04128$356ff1c0$fa5936cb@oldcow> From: "MM Rosa" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] HUM question Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 08:14:06 +1030 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all! Do HUM regulations apply only to openings or is there some other set of rules that regulates what can and cannot be used after more or less natural opening bids? Say I would like to play inverted major suit responses after 1C/D (better minor), so 1H would show 4+S and 1S would show 4+H. Is that legal? TIA -- Michal -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- GCS d s+:+ a- C++++ SU P+ L+ !E W-- N++ o+ K- w O+ !M V PS+ PE+ Y PGP- t+ 5++ X++ R tv+ b+++ DI+++ D--- G++ e++>+++ h--- r+++ z+++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Oct 29 08:57:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9SLsKi26433 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 08:54:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.a2000.nl (phoenix.a2000.nl [62.108.1.203]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9SLsEt26429 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 08:54:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 13pdvV-0002H9-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 23:54:09 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20001028235413.00f75b48@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 23:54:13 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 4 In-Reply-To: <+AdxgZAzSr+5Ewbg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:12 PM 10/28/2000 +0100, you wrote: > > Owing to the virus and other matters I rather lost the argument here. >Last I remember I posted something, and there were some replies, not all >relevant. I thought I would just argue one or two of the points >separately, and let me see whether we can agree on some of the points. > ps do you mean the iceland virus??? > First, the question of a BL. > > The TD makes a decision to allow a team to play in a certain way. >After the session has ended, another team attempts to get this team >disqualified for doing what the TD had allowed. > yes everybody has to follow the rules i think, even the TD but i wont blame hime i think; probably i would have done the same > Do you think this acceptable conduct? Would you do it? > no i dont think so. i am very sporting regards, anton >-- >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/ > 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 Sun Oct 29 08:59:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9SLuNj26439 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 08:56:23 +1100 (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 e9SLuIt26435 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 08:56:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 14:53:41 -0700 Message-ID: <00bd01c04129$c2b23f60$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.5.32.20001028201427.0083b4b0@netvision.net.il> Subject: Re: Off topic, language (Was: [BLML] Two Aces) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 14:53:05 -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 Eitan Levy wrote: > While we're on this subject, here's a quote > > The belief is in the same > category as not splitting an infinitive, > or not ending a sentence with a preposition, other invented rules > of eighteenth century grammarians that have been ignored by a large > proportion of writers of good English. These rules all grew out of > formal arguments about what ought to be right; they didn't take > into account the way the language actually works, nor how people > actually use it. While we're on the subject, how about the shall/will business? In the 17th century a mathematician (Johannis Wallis when he wrote in Latin) decided that *shall* and *will* should be distinguished in usage. There seems to have been no justification for this among his contemporaries, nor any historical justification. The two words came from Anglo-Saxon words, one meaning *ought to* and the other *desire to*. They were not signs of the future, but they became so, while retaining some flavor of their original meanings. They never became consistently divergent in any way to confirm the arbitrary rule proposed by Wallis. But once the new rule had been announced, the grammarians seized it eagerly and nothing could stop it. Except that it was only the grammarians and their docile followers who paid any attention to 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 Sun Oct 29 09:05:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9SM2Ol26468 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 09:02:24 +1100 (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 e9SM2It26464 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 09:02:19 +1100 (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 SAA25977; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 18:02:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA20893; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 18:02:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 18:02:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200010282202.SAA20893@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bnewsr@blakjak.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > The TD makes a decision to allow a team to play in a certain way. > After the session has ended, another team attempts to get this team > disqualified for doing what the TD had allowed. Put that way, it sounds bad. But what if the TD has allowed something clearly against the rules (no doubt because he had been misinformed about the facts)? An obvious example is if an ineligible player has played (too old for a junior event, too many masterpoints for Flight B, or similar). Should the teams that were properly constituted be at a disadvantage? On the other hand, it seems wrong to protest because, say, a TD lets a pair switch seats so the one with the weak eyes can sit where the light is better. It seems to me that the relevant questions are 1) was the TD acting within his discretion -- which is very broad but still limited -- and 2) did his decision _inherently_ disadvantage other teams? I use 'inherently' with the original case in mind. There is nothing inherently disavantageous to others in allowing a five-person team (if the CoC say they are allowed), even though in the actual event the fifth player happened to be stronger. But the case would have been exactly the same if the strong player had started, and the team wanted to replace him with a weaker player. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Oct 29 11:40:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9T0agp26745 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 11:36:42 +1100 (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 e9T0aZt26741 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 11:36:36 +1100 (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 13pgSd-000GzR-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 01:36:31 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 01:35:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 4 References: <+AdxgZAzSr+5Ewbg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.2.32.20001028235413.00f75b48@mail.a2000.nl> In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.20001028235413.00f75b48@mail.a2000.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.2.32.20001028235413.00f75b48@mail.a2000.nl>, Anton Witzen writes >At 12:12 PM 10/28/2000 +0100, you wrote: >> >> Owing to the virus and other matters I rather lost the argument here. >>Last I remember I posted something, and there were some replies, not all >>relevant. I thought I would just argue one or two of the points >>separately, and let me see whether we can agree on some of the points. >> > >ps do you mean the iceland virus??? > > >> First, the question of a BL. >> >> The TD makes a decision to allow a team to play in a certain way. >>After the session has ended, another team attempts to get this team >>disqualified for doing what the TD had allowed. >> >yes everybody has to follow the rules i think, even the TD >but i wont blame hime i think; probably i would have done the same > >> Do you think this acceptable conduct? Would you do it? >> > Only if I thought the TD was totally outside the Law (which in this case was at best debatable). I did recently tell a TD who wanted to give 60/40 after a hand had been played out, where there was MI, to go away and give me a legal ruling, but only because his ruling was patently absurd. Eventually he did. It cost me 20% (which I already knew). >no i dont think so. >i am very sporting >regards, >anton >>-- -- 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 Sun Oct 29 11:52:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9T0nDM26772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 11:49:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.a2000.nl (phoenix.a2000.nl [62.108.1.203]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9T0n8t26768 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 11:49:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 13pgel-0006ll-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 02:49:03 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20001029024907.00f778b0@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 02:49:07 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: [BLML] HUM question In-Reply-To: <00e801c04128$356ff1c0$fa5936cb@oldcow> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:14 AM 10/29/2000 +1030, you wrote: >Hi all! > >Do HUM regulations apply only to openings or is there some other set of >rules that regulates what can and cannot be used after more or less >natural opening bids? > >Say I would like to play inverted major suit responses after 1C/D (better >minor), so 1H would show 4+S and 1S would show 4+H. > >Is that legal? > looks rather legal (at least i have seen it sometimes in competition matches here in holland) regards, anton >TIA > >-- >Michal >-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- >GCS d s+:+ a- C++++ SU P+ L+ !E W-- N++ o+ K- w O+ !M V PS+ PE+ Y PGP- t+ >5++ X++ R tv+ b+++ DI+++ D--- G++ e++>+++ h--- r+++ z+++ >------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Sun Oct 29 13:24:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9T2NRE26952 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 13:23:27 +1100 (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 e9T2N7t26934 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 13:23:07 +1100 (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 13pi7g-000N78-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 02:23:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 23:37:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 4 References: <200010282202.SAA20893@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200010282202.SAA20893@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 >> The TD makes a decision to allow a team to play in a certain way. >> After the session has ended, another team attempts to get this team >> disqualified for doing what the TD had allowed. > >Put that way, it sounds bad. But what if the TD has allowed something >clearly against the rules (no doubt because he had been misinformed >about the facts)? An obvious example is if an ineligible player has >played (too old for a junior event, too many masterpoints for Flight B, >or similar). Should the teams that were properly constituted be at a >disadvantage? Once it has happened, would *you* try to get them disqualified? There have been a number of cases of this sort in Wales. -- 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 Oct 29 13:24:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9T2NMb26950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 13:23:22 +1100 (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 e9T2N7t26933 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 13:23:07 +1100 (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 13pi7g-000N79-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 02:23:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 23:38:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 4 References: <+AdxgZAzSr+5Ewbg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.2.32.20001028235413.00f75b48@mail.a2000.nl> In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.20001028235413.00f75b48@mail.a2000.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Anton Witzen wrote: >At 12:12 PM 10/28/2000 +0100, you wrote: >> >> Owing to the virus and other matters I rather lost the argument here. >>Last I remember I posted something, and there were some replies, not all >>relevant. I thought I would just argue one or two of the points >>separately, and let me see whether we can agree on some of the points. >> > >ps do you mean the iceland virus??? Yes, thanx! -- 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 Oct 29 13:24:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9T2NMM26951 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 13:23:22 +1100 (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 e9T2N8t26936 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 13:23:09 +1100 (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 13pi7g-000N7B-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 02:23:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 23:48:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] HUM question References: <00e801c04128$356ff1c0$fa5936cb@oldcow> In-Reply-To: <00e801c04128$356ff1c0$fa5936cb@oldcow> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk MM Rosa wrote: > >Do HUM regulations apply only to openings or is there some other set of >rules that regulates what can and cannot be used after more or less >natural opening bids? > >Say I would like to play inverted major suit responses after 1C/D (better >minor), so 1H would show 4+S and 1S would show 4+H. > >Is that legal? It is legal at WBF level, since HUMs and Brown Stickers do not refer to responses at all. However, it does depend on where you are intending to play it. While some NCBOs follow the WBF approach, many do not. Australia, interestingly enough, copied the WBF approach of the day but have not altered it [except in a few details] so if you want to play the WBF approach of ten years ago you will find it there. England, Wales and the ACBL have more than one level so you can play some things at one level but not others. -- 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 Oct 29 13:24:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9T2NL526949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 13:23:22 +1100 (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 e9T2N8t26935 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 13:23:08 +1100 (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 13pi7g-000N7A-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 02:23:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 23:40:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 4 References: <+AdxgZAzSr+5Ewbg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <+AdxgZAzSr+5Ewbg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Owing to the virus and other matters I rather lost the argument here. >Last I remember I posted something, and there were some replies, not all >relevant. I thought I would just argue one or two of the points >separately, and let me see whether we can agree on some of the points. Second, if a TD has a situation where there is no relevant CoC, no relevant Law and no obvious person to ask, what should he do? Do you think it is acceptable for him to make a decision. Before you say that this one is too obvious, at least one person argued that the answer is no, so let us find out who thinks the answer is no, and what they would do about 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 Sun Oct 29 14:25:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9T3PLi27082 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 14:25:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from phnxpop4.phnx.uswest.net (phnxpop4.phnx.uswest.net [206.80.192.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e9T3PEt27078 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 14:25:15 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 92743 invoked by alias); 29 Oct 2000 03:25:10 -0000 Delivered-To: fixup-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au@fixme Received: (qmail 92720 invoked by uid 0); 29 Oct 2000 03:25:10 -0000 Received: from vdsl-130-13-82-214.phnx.uswest.net (HELO uswest.net) (130.13.82.214) by phnxpop4.phnx.uswest.net with SMTP; 29 Oct 2000 03:25:10 -0000 Message-ID: <39FB9880.C8334C9B@uswest.net> Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 20:24:49 -0700 From: Peter Clinch X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Probst CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 4 References: <+AdxgZAzSr+5Ewbg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.2.32.20001028235413.00f75b48@mail.a2000.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > I did recently tell a TD who wanted to give > 60/40 after a hand had been played out, where there was MI, to go away > and give me a legal ruling, but only because his ruling was patently > absurd. Eventually he did. It cost me 20% (which I already knew). > ....which raises the question.... is a player allowed to talk back to the TD in this fashion, even when the laws have been misapplied? PC of Phx -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Oct 29 19:55:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9T8sSh27653 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 19:54:28 +1100 (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 e9T8sLt27646 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 19:54:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.7.116.201] (helo=D457300) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13poEJ-0001rv-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 08:54:16 +0000 Message-ID: <000c01c04185$7ae8b220$c974073e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: <+AdxgZAzSr+5Ewbg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 4 Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 08:51:47 -0000 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: > The TD makes a decision to allow a team to play in a certain way. > After the session has ended, another team attempts to get this team > disqualified for doing what the TD had allowed. > > Do you think this acceptable conduct? Would you do it? This is a meaningless question, since it cannot be answered without knowing what "a certain way" actually is. If the TD makes a decision to allow a team to play by signalling with their fingers how many hearts they hold, I would attempt to get the team disqualified and the TD dismissed (and I would succeed in both aims). If the TD makes a decision to allow a team to play in a Junior event when one of its members is over 25, I would attempt to get the team disqualified and the TD dismissed (and I would succeed in both aims). It is simply not good enough to say: the TD didn't know the rules, but the TD let them play so I, another player, should simply accept their presence in the event. The TD is not all-powerful - just because the TD does something, that does not mean that it should have been done, nor that it should not be undone. In the case in point, the TD allowed a player to replace a team-mate during a session, contrary to Law 4 of the game. Despite what DWS asserts, it is quite clear that this was also contrary to regulation - in the absence of specific conditions of contest, the EBU regulation defining a session and quoted by Anne Jones was in force. The replacement played when he should not have played, just as (for example) a 30-year-old who played in a Junior event should not have played. Disqualification is certainly one of the sanctions that may properly be imposed on a team for whom an ineligible person plays, to the advantage of the team. It would be entirely acceptable in those circumstances for another player to point out the infraction (though he should not, of course, suggest what the penalty for it ought to be). It should also be said, if this discussion is to descend to the level of emotional appeal such as DWS's question above, that this was not a case of turning away a player or a team and denying them a place in the competition or an evening's bridge. The replacement in question had been otherwise occupied for most of the session, and was physically able to play only the last four boards. It would not have been very much of a hardship for him not to have done this, but gone to the bar instead and let his team get on with the final match without him. 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 Sun Oct 29 20:32:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9T9WeA27729 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 20:32:40 +1100 (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 e9T9WWt27725 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 20:32:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.6.134]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20001029093227.UIZS277.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 09:32:27 +0000 Message-ID: <001901c0418b$a254cd20$8606ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne.jones1" To: "BLML" References: <200010282202.SAA20893@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 4 Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 09:35:53 -0000 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: Saturday, October 28, 2000 10:37 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 4 > Steve Willner wrote: > >> From: David Stevenson > >> The TD makes a decision to allow a team to play in a certain way. > >> After the session has ended, another team attempts to get this team > >> disqualified for doing what the TD had allowed. > > > >Put that way, it sounds bad. But what if the TD has allowed something > >clearly against the rules (no doubt because he had been misinformed > >about the facts)? An obvious example is if an ineligible player has > >played (too old for a junior event, too many masterpoints for Flight B, > >or similar). Should the teams that were properly constituted be at a > >disadvantage? > > Once it has happened, would *you* try to get them disqualified? > > There have been a number of cases of this sort in Wales. > The cases you refer to David, are ones where players have contravened the regulations, either by playing when clearly ineligible by virtue of not having paid the money required to renew their membership, or by playing in a second qualifier, having failed in a first. I believe this is unfair to the other pairs in the competition, the ones who have fulfilled their obligations. I have no hesitation in disqualifying these players. This has nothing to do with Law 4 though does it? 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 Sun Oct 29 23:27:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9TCQEO28025 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 23:26:14 +1100 (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 e9TCQ6t28016 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 23:26:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.122] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13prXG-000F3d-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 12:26:03 +0000 Message-ID: <002d01c041a3$63b42940$7a5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <008f01c040af$72a75fc0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Off topic, language (Was: [BLML] Two Aces) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 11:00:26 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: 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 " Bid me discourse, I will enchant thine ear; Or like a fairy , trip upon the green; Or like a nymph, with long, dishevelled hair, Dance on the sands , and yet no footing seen. " 'Venus and Adonis'. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2000 7:19 AM Subject: Re: Off topic, language (Was: [BLML] Two Aces) -------- \x/ -------- > > The Naughty Preposition, by Morris Bishop, > in *The New Yorker*, 1947: > > I lately lost a preposition; > It hid, I thought, beneath my chair; > And angrily I cried,"Perdition! > Up from out of in under there!" > > Correctness is my vade mecum, > And straggling phrases I abhor, > And yet I wonder, "What should he come > Up from out of in under for? > > Marv > mlfrench@writeme.com > +=+ Could this be the last word? ~ 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 Sun Oct 29 23:27:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9TCQE228024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 23:26:14 +1100 (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 e9TCQ4t28015 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 23:26:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.122] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13prXE-000F3d-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 12:26:01 +0000 Message-ID: <002c01c041a3$6296d260$7a5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200010231540.IAA23684@mailhub.irvine.com><000f01c03d29$a37b63a0$3ab301d5@D457300><005701c03d59$295390e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.20001027172043.0122c138@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 10:38:25 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: 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 "Study the fundamentals. Make yourself as effective as possible," - Ty Cobb, aka 'The Georgia Peach'. ********************************************** ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael S. Dennis To: Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 9:20 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces > At 09:47 AM 10/24/2000 -0400, Hirsch wrote: > > --------------------- \x/ ------------------ > >I agree that the player who takes this action needs a lecture on UI > >(if we even find out about this), and bears watching in the future. > >However, it's hard to see how we can penalize one player, when the > >bridge action taken is exactly the same legal one that would be taken > >by a law-abiding ethical player. IMO the Laws require that we > >penalize illegal actions, not impure motivation or bad bridge > >judgement. > > > > This last is an important (and too frequently forgotten) point. > +=+ Bad bridge judgement is not subject to law or regulation. The only penalties are in broken partnerships. But I am not so sure that we can say the same of impure motivation. Laws like 72B1, 72B2 and 73C do touch upon motivation, and in two of these cases at least open up the possibility of a PP even when there is no damage to opponents. ~ 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 Oct 30 01:40:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9TEdTR28431 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 01:39:29 +1100 (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 e9TEdBt28422 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 01:39:12 +1100 (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 13ptc1-000II9-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 14:39:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 04:18:02 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 4 References: <+AdxgZAzSr+5Ewbg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.2.32.20001028235413.00f75b48@mail.a2000.nl> <39FB9880.C8334C9B@uswest.net> In-Reply-To: <39FB9880.C8334C9B@uswest.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <39FB9880.C8334C9B@uswest.net>, Peter Clinch writes > > >"John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > >> I did recently tell a TD who wanted to give >> 60/40 after a hand had been played out, where there was MI, to go away >> and give me a legal ruling, but only because his ruling was patently >> absurd. Eventually he did. It cost me 20% (which I already knew). >> > >....which raises the question.... is a player allowed to talk back to the TD >in this fashion, even when the laws have been misapplied? > >PC of Phx > It saved him having to attend an appeals committee. All I told him was that in my opinion he had made an illegal ruling, and perhaps he should reconsider it. He can't be bothered to RTFLB and frequently gives such rulings. I generally won't play in his games for that reason -- 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 Oct 30 01:40:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9TEdKv28430 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 01:39:20 +1100 (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 e9TEdBt28423 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 01:39:12 +1100 (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 13ptc2-000AAG-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 14:39:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 04:19:11 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 4 References: <200010282202.SAA20893@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >Steve Willner wrote: >>> From: David Stevenson >>> The TD makes a decision to allow a team to play in a certain way. >>> After the session has ended, another team attempts to get this team >>> disqualified for doing what the TD had allowed. >> >>Put that way, it sounds bad. But what if the TD has allowed something >>clearly against the rules (no doubt because he had been misinformed >>about the facts)? An obvious example is if an ineligible player has >>played (too old for a junior event, too many masterpoints for Flight B, >>or similar). Should the teams that were properly constituted be at a >>disadvantage? > > Once it has happened, would *you* try to get them disqualified? I probably would if they've violated the CoC, but the 5th player problem was not in violation of the CoC. > > There have been a number of cases of this sort in Wales. > > -- 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 Oct 30 01:40:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9TEdoq28437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 01:39:50 +1100 (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 e9TEdht28433 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 01:39:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-24.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.24]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA18967 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 15:39:39 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <39FC1FAD.ADE5CD4B@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 14:01:33 +0100 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] Two Aces References: <02cd01c03d41$5aac8c40$87d436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <3.0.1.32.20001027173126.0122c1b0@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: > > There is a large class of bids that systemically express uncertainty, and > require partner to make a determination as to the correct course. An > excellent example is the forcing pass. Although this is probably an > overused tool, it is still an important weapon in competitive bidding. > > The slow non-forcing pass of a high-level bid in a competitive auction > serves much the same purpose, although obviously unintentionally in most > cases. It expresses serious doubt about allowing the opponents to play > undoubled, and implicitly invites partner to take action. Can anyone > seriously dispute that this, too, would be a useful tool to add to one's > arsenal? Is anyone prepared to argue that it is or should be legal to bid > this way? But this is, in essence, the position of those who argue that the > hesitation must suggest one specific action (i.e., either doubling or > bidding, but not both) in order to adjust under L16. > Allow me to show you that my partner is not the best bidder in the world: me xx him yy 1Sp p 3Sp p (3Sp = 10-11, 4-card support *) 4Sp p 4NT p (RKCB) 6Di (1 or 3 KC, void diamonds) Dbl 6Sp 7Di (?????) pass(in tempo) (you're in charge of this bidding) pass pass (he was afraid it would make !!!) Just to show you that a fast forcing pass can make pass a LA to some bidders. The hands aren't necessary, are they ? (*) do I really have to add : non-forcing ? -- 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 Oct 30 02:28:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9TFRos28522 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 02:27:50 +1100 (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 e9TFRit28518 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 02:27:45 +1100 (EST) Received: by esebh02nok with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2652.78) id ; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 17:27:36 +0200 Message-ID: From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 4 Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 17:27:35 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2652.78) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: EXT David Stevenson [mailto:bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk] > Sent: 29. October 2000 1:38 > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 4 > > > Steve Willner wrote: > >> From: David Stevenson > >> The TD makes a decision to allow a team to play in a certain way. > >> After the session has ended, another team attempts to get this team > >> disqualified for doing what the TD had allowed. > > > >Put that way, it sounds bad. But what if the TD has allowed > something > >clearly against the rules (no doubt because he had been misinformed > >about the facts)? An obvious example is if an ineligible player has > >played (too old for a junior event, too many masterpoints > for Flight B, > >or similar). Should the teams that were properly constituted be at a > >disadvantage? > > Once it has happened, would *you* try to get them disqualified? OK, I've been far too long on this list not to know that BLMLers don't like BL but... I'm with Steve on this one. It depends on the caliber of TD's error. If the TD lets a non-junior player participate in a all-junior event then I would not only demand disqualification of the team but also the TD. Perhaps that would earn me a name of some boody BL but I don't care. Pacta sund servanda - and if someone purposely and clearly breaks the law gaining unfair advantage and then gets disqualified he gets what he deserved, right? I don't think it applies in the case that started the whole discussion (the fifth player case). Even if the TD's descision was wrong it was a fairly complex case and even if the TD got it wrong it was simply an honest mistake. 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 Oct 30 02:42:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9TFgAX28572 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 02:42:10 +1100 (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 e9TFg1t28568 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 02:42:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d358.iae.nl [212.61.5.104]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 1029420F2B for ; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 16:41:54 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <009f01c041be$a6065b40$6a053dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <3.0.1.32.20001027222326.01231cf0@pop.mindspring.com> <000901c040a0$e539f660$f58c01d5@D457300> Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 16:17:08 +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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2000 6:35 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces > Michael wrote: > > > >Yes, I can dispute this, and already have. You're suggesting a tool > > >that says, "Partner, I doubt that allowing the opponents to play > > >undoubled is a good idea, and that if you either save or double, > > >depending on which one you think is right, we will probably get a > > >better score." As I said previously, I don't think there is any hand > > >that could use such a tool. > > > > Then allow me to introduce you to the Forcing Pass. It conveys > virtually > > this identical message: "Partner, I'm sure that defending this > contract > > undoubled is not our best spot. Double or continue, but do not pass." > Now I > > agree that it is not _exactly_ the same, as more information is > present in > > the Forcing Pass, but it is not so very different. And thousands of > players > > use this very treatment every day, quite legally. Of course thousands > more > > use the "quasi-forcing" pass like the one we have been discussing, > although > > I am not so sure about its legality. > > This isn't quite what Adam meant, I don't think. A forcing pass does not > mean "save or double", for (as Adam rightly says), nothing could > sensibly mean that. A forcing pass means "bid higher to make, or > double", which is not the same thing at all. According to The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge it is situation (1) Situation (2) is: The opportunity for a sacrifice has arisen. A forcing pass denotes the desire to sacrifice, and asks partner to do so if he cannot double the opponents, and defeat their contract. To make it more difficult, there is also a situation (3) and (4). Ben > Sometimes, of course, it > happens that the forcing pass means in effect "choose between -790 > and -800", but bridge is not always an easy game. > > A side issue appears to have arisen arbour which I would say this: it is > not possible to split infinitives in Latin (and a number of other > languages(, but we do not speak Latin. In English, which we do speak, it > is possible to split an infinitive. But such a construction is awkward, > and its use is appropriate only: for emphasis, or to avoid ambiguity, or > to avoid an inelegance greater than the split infinitive itself. > > 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 Mon Oct 30 07:24:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9TKN5D29033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 07:23:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from phnxpop2.phnx.uswest.net (phnxpop2.phnx.uswest.net [206.80.192.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e9TKMwt29028 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 07:22:59 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 20653 invoked by alias); 29 Oct 2000 20:22:55 -0000 Delivered-To: fixup-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au@fixme Received: (qmail 20642 invoked by uid 0); 29 Oct 2000 20:22:54 -0000 Received: from vdsl-130-13-82-214.phnx.uswest.net (HELO uswest.net) (130.13.82.214) by phnxpop2.phnx.uswest.net with SMTP; 29 Oct 2000 20:22:54 -0000 Message-ID: <39FC86FB.7C9E27BE@uswest.net> Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 13:22:19 -0700 From: Peter Clinch X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Probst CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 4 References: <+AdxgZAzSr+5Ewbg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.2.32.20001028235413.00f75b48@mail.a2000.nl> <39FB9880.C8334C9B@uswest.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > >> I did recently tell a TD who wanted to give > >> 60/40 after a hand had been played out, where there was MI, to go away > >> and give me a legal ruling, but only because his ruling was patently > >> absurd. Eventually he did. It cost me 20% (which I already knew). > >> > > > >....which raises the question.... is a player allowed to talk back to the TD > >in this fashion, even when the laws have been misapplied? > > > >PC of Phx > > > It saved him having to attend an appeals committee. All I told him was > that in my opinion he had made an illegal ruling, and perhaps he should > reconsider it. He can't be bothered to RTFLB and frequently gives such > rulings. I generally won't play in his games for that reason The real question, though, is surely "who watches the watchmen?" It doesn't appear that this guy deserves to be "saved", since to RTFLB is pretty much why he's there. Saying "ha ha now open the law book" may work for those who know the laws, but meanwhile this guy will be laying down the unlaw to a number of poor saps who know no better. While I recognise my first reply was something of a smartass comment (and sorry for that), there surely is a serious issue here. Challenging any director ruling has to happen through the established process: otherwise the directors will be no more than baseball umpires, free to rule as they wish when they wish, secluded and safe in their ignorance. And stopping more and more players from enjoying the bridge. PC. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Oct 30 08:55:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9TLreJ29189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 08:53:40 +1100 (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 e9TLrYt29185 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 08:53:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp2.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 13q0OQ-0006PJ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 22:53:30 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20001029225324.00f75000@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 22:53:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 4 In-Reply-To: <39FC86FB.7C9E27BE@uswest.net> References: <+AdxgZAzSr+5Ewbg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.2.32.20001028235413.00f75b48@mail.a2000.nl> <39FB9880.C8334C9B@uswest.net> 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 10/29/2000 -0700, you wrote: > > >"John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > >> >> I did recently tell a TD who wanted to give >> >> 60/40 after a hand had been played out, where there was MI, to go away >> >> and give me a legal ruling, but only because his ruling was patently >> >> absurd. Eventually he did. It cost me 20% (which I already knew). >> >> >> > >> >....which raises the question.... is a player allowed to talk back to the TD >> >in this fashion, even when the laws have been misapplied? >> > >> >PC of Phx >> > >> It saved him having to attend an appeals committee. All I told him was >> that in my opinion he had made an illegal ruling, and perhaps he should >> reconsider it. He can't be bothered to RTFLB and frequently gives such >> rulings. I generally won't play in his games for that reason > >The real question, though, is surely "who watches the watchmen?" It doesn't >appear that this guy deserves to be "saved", since to RTFLB is pretty much why >he's there. Saying "ha ha now open the law book" may work for those who know the >laws, but meanwhile this guy will be laying down the unlaw to a number of poor >saps who know no better. While I recognise my first reply was something of a >smartass comment (and sorry for that), there surely is a serious issue here. >Challenging any director ruling has to happen through the established process: >otherwise the directors will be no more than baseball umpires, free to rule as >they wish when they wish, secluded and safe in their ignorance. And stopping more >and more players from enjoying the bridge. > well, what you really seem to say is that lots of directors arent really qualified for their job. In a way this is true, but who is to blame....... I think that the NCBO is responsible for delivering good directors; thats why we in holland deliver only about 50 TD's per 2 years. But these TD's can do a very good job; they get a 3 year course, are tested on their level of handling high level hands and ethical questions. But............. 50 TD's in 2 years isnt much and anyway everybody that in a club is named as TD has the powers from he law book even if he isnt qualified by exams. The problem is that accoring to the laws, the NCBO hasnt any power to deny a person from being TD in his own right. Perhaps that problem should be solved. regards, anton >PC. > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 30 11:23:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9U0MF629428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:22:15 +1100 (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 e9U0M6t29420 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:22:07 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id AAA01294 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 00:21:58 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 00:21 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces 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: <3.0.1.32.20001027172043.0122c138@pop.mindspring.com> Mike Dennis wrote: > Whether or not it would possible to adjudicate such an issue under the > Laws, the NOS is entitled to redress _in principle_, because the doubler > has taken an action that _they believe_ is suggested by UI, contrary to > the requirements of L73, and the NOS has suffered in consequence. Not so surely. L73 requires that one "avoid" taking advantage - success or failure is what is measured. As Yoda once said "There is no try." 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 Oct 30 11:23:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9U0MG529429 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:22:16 +1100 (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 e9U0M6t29421 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:22:07 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id AAA01310 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 00:21:59 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 00:21 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces 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: <027601c03f7d$dc338640$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Marv wrote: > A player holds S-void H-AKJx D-xxxx C-xxxxx, with favorable > vulnerability. > > The opponents crawl up to 4S, neither having shown more than four > spades: > > 1S=2S=3H=3S=4S (four-card majors) This is a slam-try auction, not a crawl so a speculative double is not a reasonable option anyway. However, assuming opponents do play this as marginal sequence and a player doubles with the above hand then his partner will now bid 4NT (or 5C) with the minor 2 suiter hand and pass with the trump stack. So here the UI suggests double over pass either way. But perhaps one could consider 4N with the given hand oneself - after all pard probably has a 4 card minor somewhere. You, knowing partner's habits, decide that partner probably was considering a double of 4S. That makes pass feel more attractive than 4N so you dutifully bid the counter-indicated 4N, pard bids 5C and gets doubled. Pard goes down with a miracle KQTx,xx,x,Axxxxx and +850 rolls home on the heart lead. There should be no adjustment. 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 Oct 30 17:01:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9U60U400100 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 17:00:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9U60Mt00096 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 17:00:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.169.80] (helo=D457300) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13q7zU-0000rZ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 06:00:17 +0000 Message-ID: <000501c04236$38fdd3c0$50a901d5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 05:56:59 -0000 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 wrote: > You, knowing partner's habits, decide that partner probably was > considering a double of 4S. That makes pass feel more attractive than 4N > so you dutifully bid the counter-indicated 4N, pard bids 5C and gets > doubled. > > Pard goes down with a miracle KQTx,xx,x,Axxxxx and +850 rolls home on the > heart lead. There should be no adjustment. I express no view at all of the ethics of the situation. But I say categorically that there should be an adjustment in this case. One of these days, a contributor to this list will know how to score at duplicate contract bridge. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 30 19:15:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9U8EmA00383 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 19:14:48 +1100 (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 e9U8Eht00379 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 19:14:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 00:12:02 -0800 Message-ID: <01f301c04249$5caa89e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 00:07:52 -0800 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: Marv wrote: > > A player holds S-void H-AKJx D-xxxx C-xxxxx, with favorable > > vulnerability. > > > > The opponents crawl up to 4S, neither having shown more than four > > spades: > > > > 1S=2S=3H=3S=4S (four-card majors) > > This is a slam-try auction, not a crawl so a speculative double is not a > reasonable option anyway. Please don't nitpick. Am I supposed to spend time coming up with an auction and hand that would suit everybody? We are looking for a principle in the Laws, not a bridge lesson. Come to think of it, most hotshots in this area bid 3H with xxx as an unAlerted lead inhibitor, with no thought of slam. With AJ9 or KJ9 of hearts I lead the jack, in case opener has 10xx and the queen is in dummy. > > However, assuming opponents do play this as marginal sequence and a player > doubles with the above hand then his partner will now bid 4NT (or 5C) with > the minor 2 suiter hand and pass with the trump stack. So here the UI > suggests double over pass either way. But perhaps one could consider 4N > with the given hand oneself - after all pard probably has a 4 card minor > somewhere. > > You, knowing partner's habits, decide that partner probably was > considering a double of 4S. That makes pass feel more attractive than 4N > so you dutifully bid the counter-indicated 4N, pard bids 5C and gets > doubled. I think that's "contraindicated." :)) > > Pard goes down with a miracle KQTx,xx,x,Axxxxx and +850 rolls home on the > heart lead. There should be no adjustment. > L16A doesn't say I have to take the most unatractive alternative to a suggested action, just any logical alternative. Not that 4NT is an LA when 4S looks doubtful, UI or no UI. 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 Mon Oct 30 19:43:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9U8gpW00433 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 19:42:51 +1100 (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 e9U8gdt00425 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 19:42:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.153] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13qAWX-0008o1-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 08:42:33 +0000 Message-ID: <004401c0424d$569b30a0$e95908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <+AdxgZAzSr+5Ewbg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000c01c04185$7ae8b220$c974073e@D457300> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 4 Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 08:41:08 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: 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 "Everything has been said already, but not everyone has said it. " - Stanislaw Lec. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ' ----- Original Message ----- From: David Burn To: Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2000 8:51 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 4 > DWS wrote: > > > The TD makes a decision to allow a team to play in > > a certain way. After the session has ended, another > > team attempts to get this team disqualified for > > doing what the TD had allowed. > > > > Do you think this acceptable conduct? Would > > you do it? > ----------- \x/ ---------- > > It is simply not good enough to say: the TD didn't know > the rules, but the TD let them play so I, another player, > should simply accept theirpresence in the event. The > TD is not all-powerful - just because the TD does > something, that does not mean that it should have > been done, nor that it should not be undone. > ------------- \x/ ---------- +=+ Whilst the number of Aces on my screen continues to multiply I have been mulling over in my mind what action is open to a team who are at the other end of the room when a player is allowed to play a round contrary to law and regulation. Since they were not at the table they have no right of appeal under L92A. Address to the Tournament Committee a written statement of the facts as they are understood to be and enquire as to the validity of the announced results? Take the matter to the IOC? Claim a refund? Issue a writ? Write to blml? Cry? Or all of these? ~ 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 Oct 30 19:43:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9U8gni00432 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 19:42:49 +1100 (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 e9U8gct00424 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 19:42:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.153] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13qAWW-0008o1-00; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 08:42:32 +0000 Message-ID: <004301c0424d$55daede0$e95908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 07:45:36 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: 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 "Everything has been said already, but not everyone has said it. " - Stanislaw Lec. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ' ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim West-meads To: Cc: Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 12:21 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces > In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20001027172043.0122c138@pop.mindspring.com> > Mike Dennis wrote: > > > Whether or not it would possible to adjudicate such an issue under the > > Laws, the NOS is entitled to redress _in principle_, because the doubler > > has taken an action that _they believe_ is suggested by UI, contrary to > > the requirements of L73, and the NOS has suffered in consequence. > > Not so surely. L73 requires that one "avoid" taking advantage - success > or failure is what is measured. As Yoda once said "There is no try." > Tim > +=+ A player who seeks to take advantage cannot be said to have carefully avoided doing so just because he fails. The law says 'carefully avoid'. ~ 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 Oct 30 20:47:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9U9kP700583 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 20:46:25 +1100 (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 e9U9kJt00579 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 20:46:19 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id JAA06937 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:46:12 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:46 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces 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: <000501c04236$38fdd3c0$50a901d5@D457300> > > Pard goes down with a miracle KQTx,xx,x,Axxxxx and +850 rolls home on > the > > heart lead. There should be no adjustment. > > I express no view at all of the ethics of the situation. But I say > categorically that there should be an adjustment in this case. One of > these days, a contributor to this list will know how to score at > duplicate contract bridge. OK that should read +750. Don't know if it was a typo or bad maths. I would be more interested in your views on the ethics of the 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 Mon Oct 30 22:25:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9UBNcX00832 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 22:23:38 +1100 (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 e9UBNPt00828 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 22:23:26 +1100 (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 13qD27-00013u-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:23:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:19:57 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 4 References: <200010282202.SAA20893@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200010282202.SAA20893@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 >> The TD makes a decision to allow a team to play in a certain way. >> After the session has ended, another team attempts to get this team >> disqualified for doing what the TD had allowed. > >Put that way, it sounds bad. But what if the TD has allowed something >clearly against the rules (no doubt because he had been misinformed >about the facts)? An obvious example is if an ineligible player has >played (too old for a junior event, too many masterpoints for Flight B, >or similar). Should the teams that were properly constituted be at a >disadvantage? Well, I have looked at the answers so far, and it seems to be that there is a lot of distrust, which I find surprising. If a player lies to a TD and plays as a result then I find it very reasonable to get his team disqualified. I can remember two cases like that. If a TD is totally incompetent then there is a problem anyway which the sponsoring organisation needs to fix. But how about the more common case [in my experience] where the TD allows something because [a] it seems to him to be legal or [b] because it seems the best practical situation to a problem. The same question applies where it is not the TD on site who decides but the sponsoring organisation. To take your example, suppose the SO decides that they will accept an overage player in a Chinese team that is playing in a Junior event in San Francisco. They do so, let us say, because one of the original players has visa problems and is stuck in Beijing. The SO decides to let an official travelling with the party [who happens to be about a year too old] play. Do you attempt to get the team disqualified at the end of the event? I am unhappy with the whole mindset of attempting to get teams disqualified where the authority, either in the form of the SO originally, or in the form of the SO's representative on site, whether the TD or another, decides it is the best thing to do to let the players play. Let me give you an example that has happened in England - more than once! We have various ranks of player, with the highest rank being Grand Master. There is an annual competition for Grand Masters, and the CoC says that both members of the pair must be EBU Grand Masters. About four years ago the event was won by two WBU Grand Masters - the EBU had decided to accept their entry knowing that they did not qualify to play in the event under the CoC. Note that WBU players may play in EBU events without paying an EBU sub normally, but that does not qualify them for this restricted event. Should other players have asked for them to be disqualified after the event? Note that there have been a few other occasions of non-qualified people playing in this event: one year a pair of Life Masters played because that meant that both the Grand Masters and the Life Masters had an even number of pairs. Again, this decision was made by the authorities in full possession of the facts. So, accepting that where a player has hidden the facts from the authorities it is reasonable to get them disqualified, what about the cases where they have not? You want another example? OK, this year at Brighton, the Mixed Pairs [every pair must consist of one man and one woman] was won by a pair of men. Certainly allegedly humorous comments were passed! But they were told [in advance] that they could not win the trophy, and the pair that came second were declared the winners. OK. Now suppose you had come third, and when you played against these men you got two bottoms, what then? -- 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 Oct 30 22:25:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9UBNCX00826 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 22:23:12 +1100 (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 e9UBN0t00822 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 22:23:00 +1100 (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 13qD1g-00013z-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:22:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 10:59:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 4 References: <200010282202.SAA20893@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001901c0418b$a254cd20$8606ff3e@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <001901c0418b$a254cd20$8606ff3e@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk anne.jones1 wrote: >From: "David Stevenson" >> Steve Willner wrote: >> >> From: David Stevenson >> >> The TD makes a decision to allow a team to play in a certain way. >> >> After the session has ended, another team attempts to get this team >> >> disqualified for doing what the TD had allowed. >> > >> >Put that way, it sounds bad. But what if the TD has allowed something >> >clearly against the rules (no doubt because he had been misinformed >> >about the facts)? An obvious example is if an ineligible player has >> >played (too old for a junior event, too many masterpoints for Flight B, >> >or similar). Should the teams that were properly constituted be at a >> >disadvantage? >> >> Once it has happened, would *you* try to get them disqualified? >> >> There have been a number of cases of this sort in Wales. >> >The cases you refer to David, are ones where players have contravened the >regulations, either by playing when clearly ineligible by virtue of not >having paid the money required to renew their membership, or by playing in a >second qualifier, having failed in a first. >I believe this is unfair to the other pairs in the competition, the ones who >have fulfilled their obligations. >I have no hesitation in disqualifying these players. >This has nothing to do with Law 4 though does it? There is a matter of approach, and certainly some of the cases have been nowhere near as simple as you are suggesting. In my experience in England as Director, L&EC member, organiser and various other things over fifteen years, I can think of about two cases where teams have tried to get each other disqualified. In my experience in Wales, a smaller organisation over a much shorter period, I have heard of about eight cases. I think it is *really* disturbing, and shows a mindset that needs correction. For example, a player turns up at a heat, and is told she has to pay a 25 pence subscription, which she immediately offers. [About 35 US cents.] The organisers say they cannot accept the subscription, but it does not matter, and the TD allows her to play. Do you really think her team should have been disqualified? Do you really think that other teams should be asking for her disqualification? -- 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 Oct 30 22:31:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9UBTRd00853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 22:29:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from loki.cee.hw.ac.uk (exim@loki.cee.hw.ac.uk [137.195.52.13]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9UBTGt00849 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 22:29:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from idc by loki.cee.hw.ac.uk with local (Exim 3.12 #3) id 13qD7m-0004DA-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:29:10 +0000 From: Ian D Crorie Subject: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Organisation: Dept of Computing & Electrical Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland X-Mailer: Exim/Ream v4.15a (The Choice of the Old Generation too) Message-Id: Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:29:10 +0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I post this because I thought the Appeals committee's decision was a poor one (despite the fact that as North I benefitted from it) but I could not find in the FLB things that I had thought were there about when an Assigned Adjusted Score that doesn't balance can be awarded. So comments sought. E-W Vul, dealer W, SBU national trials stage 2 - AKJx KTxxx J8xx KQTxx AJxxx xx Qxxx Ax Jxx Qxxx x xxx xxx Qxx AKT9 W N E S 1S Dbl 3H* 4C p p 4S p p 5C p p Dbl 5C doubled went -4 (with less than optimal play) for 800 to EW. 3H was alerted and explained as "fit bid H+S, limit raise or better values". The real agreement was artificial, 6-9, 4+ spades. East informed opponents of this at the end of the hand. NS claimed they had been damaged (2 points made): South bid 4C expecting partner was very likely to be on lead against a spade game and he wanted to direct the lead. If he had the real meaning of 3H, the possibility of EW reaching game was much reduced and 4C therefore stood to gain less. North expected a fit bid on a Queen high suit to have significant length to compensate; if East has Qxxxxx then his hearts may not stand up and if East has limit raise + then South has few hcp available to him and 4C must be suggesting a sacrifice. In addition, NS freely admitted their bidding was less than good (4C dangerous anyway, South should dbl 4S to stop partner trying a sacrifice, insert any others you like). The Director ruled no damage, NS apealed and the Appeals committee ruled EW keep +800, NS score changed to -140 (likely result in 3S by W). This made the match score EW +2 IMPs, NS +6 IMPs. IMHO: I would have expected the AC to rule somewhere between no damage result stands, and 50% of NS -140 and 50% of NS -800 to both sides. I felt there was damage but NS contributed enough themselves to their poor score that full restitution shouldn't be given. The Fuss: The wording of L12C2 seems to allow the AC to rule as they did but it seems wrong to me: I had vaguely believed that if the resulting total MP or IMPs became greater than 100% or 0 IMPs that could only be after an irregularity where both sides were non-offenders. But I can't find anything in the LB to support this. --- I always wanted to be someone - I guess I should have been more specific -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 30 23:59:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9UCwKU01113 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 23:58:20 +1100 (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 e9UCwDt01109 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 23:58:14 +1100 (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 e9UDGnN18752 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 08:16:50 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20001030074625.00aad4d0@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, 30 Oct 2000 07:57:06 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 4 In-Reply-To: <+AdxgZAzSr+5Ewbg@blakjak.demon.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 06:12 AM 10/28/00, David wrote: > The TD makes a decision to allow a team to play in a certain way. >After the session has ended, another team attempts to get this team >disqualified for doing what the TD had allowed. > > Do you think this acceptable conduct? Would you do it? This happened yesterday at a local sectional. A team of four arrived from out of town to play in the Flight B Swiss Teams, which has an upper limit of 1500 ACBL MP. One of the members had fewer than 1500 MP as of his last "master point card", and thought he was eligible. But the SO had, about a week before the tournament, published a list of their top 200 Life Masters, available at the tournament, which showed him at 1501 (at the moment his team reached the entry desk, the ACBL computer records showed him at 1507). Normally the TD would simply have required them to enter the Flight A Swiss. But yesterday there was no Flight A Swiss -- the unlimited game was a board-a-match, and it was clear that this team had not come, and would not have come, to play BAM. The TD made a spot decision to grant an exception and allow the team to play in the Flight B event. At some point some other team noticed that this player was listed at 1501 on the top LMs list, and complained that they should be disqualified. The members of the board of the SO who were present at the event backed the TD 100%. 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 Oct 31 01:14:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9UEDXS01257 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 01:13:33 +1100 (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 e9UEDQt01253 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 01:13:27 +1100 (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 JAA29883 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:13:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id JAA10779 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:13:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:13:21 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200010301413.JAA10779@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 4 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > But how about the more common case [in my experience] where the TD > allows something because [a] it seems to him to be legal or [b] because > it seems the best practical situation to a problem. It seems to me that the two questions I asked are the relevant ones: if the "something" is _clearly_ disallowed by the rules, and it _inherently_ disadvantages other contestants, I would wish to make the proper authorities aware of the facts. (As someone else, perhaps David B. pointed out, it would be wrong to suggest any particular course of action.) There are several men, some I think mentioned in the latest ACBL Bulletin, who have won women's pair events. Of course they were asked to enter for the convenience of the movement. In fact, what happens is that they are not the official winners; the event is won by the highest-ranking eligible pair. (I believe the men get master points for their session performances but not for the overall scores, but I'm not certain.) I think the same principle should apply to David's example of a travelling Junior team unable to field enough players. A TD might appoint an ineligible substitute to let the team play, but the team would become ineligible for the official title. In David's example of Life Masters playing in the Grand Master's event (again for the convenience of the movement), I don't see why they shouldn't be eligible for the official win. They are on paper _less_ skilled than the legitimate entrants, so letting them enter appears to disadvantage no one. In Eric's example of the player with 1501 or 1507 masterpoints, the first question is whether the CoC spelled out which MP list is the official one for the tournament. If not, it seems quite reasonable to decide it is the latest card in the player's possession. If, on the other hand, it has been announced that the official list will be the one at the tournament site, it seems wrong to let the player compete. (The committee might have let the team play as a courtesy with the understanding that they could not be the official winners.) All the above are what the proper authorities should do if called upon to make a decision. David's real question, I think, was what individual players should do if the TD or relevant tournament committee, in full position of the facts, makes a decision that seems contrary to the annouced CoC. In that case, I wouldn't think it my place to interfere. However, if the decision seems stupid enough, I might campaign for different committee members for the next tournament. In the extremely unlikely case that the decision seems to have been made with malice, C&E action might be appropriate. But again the individual player's role should be to make the authorities aware of the facts and nothing more. By the way, I've been disqualified from an event myself. My partner was a good player from England, but he didn't have enough (any?) ACBL master points to be eligible for the event. (It was a "Master's Pairs," and you needed a _minimum_ number of points to be eligible to enter.) The TD, on hearing the facts, allowed us to enter, but the Memphis computer disqualified us and took away master points we won. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 31 02:11:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9UFBTI01375 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 02:11:29 +1100 (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 e9UFBJt01371 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 02:11:23 +1100 (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 QAA08004; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:09:04 +0100 (MET) 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 QAA22904; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:11:00 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001030162145.008eb100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:21:45 +0100 To: "MM Rosa" , "Bridge Laws" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] HUM question In-Reply-To: <00e801c04128$356ff1c0$fa5936cb@oldcow> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:14 29/10/00 +1030, MM Rosa wrote: >Hi all! > >Do HUM regulations apply only to openings or is there some other set of >rules that regulates what can and cannot be used after more or less >natural opening bids? > >Say I would like to play inverted major suit responses after 1C/D (better >minor), so 1H would show 4+S and 1S would show 4+H. > >Is that legal? AG : HUM regulations do not apply to anything but opening bids ; BSC apply to opening bids and overcalls ; a response might only be classified red (thus being allowed in most top-level events). Yes, your idea of inverting majors (or responding in transfer, eg 1C-1D = H, 1C-1H = S, 1C-1S = no major) would be red. To the Dutchmen : please note this is not the same as the Dutch 'red sticker', which is akin to the international BSC. 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 Oct 31 02:27:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9UFQU501392 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 02:26:30 +1100 (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 e9UFQOt01388 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 02:26:25 +1100 (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 QAA12800; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:24:13 +0100 (MET) 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 QAA04678; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:26:10 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001030163655.007b9100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:36:55 +0100 To: Ian D Crorie , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) 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 11:29 30/10/00 +0000, Ian D Crorie wrote: > >I post this because I thought the Appeals committee's decision was >a poor one (despite the fact that as North I benefitted from it) >but I could not find in the FLB things that I had thought were >there about when an Assigned Adjusted Score that doesn't balance >can be awarded. So comments sought. It can be found, for artificial adjusted scores, as the last sentence of L 12 C 1, and for other adjustments, it is implied in the subtle difference between the hyphenated sentences in L 12 C 2, and stated immediately thereafter. In the case you mention, there is the possibility of letting the score stand and giving E/W a PP for incorrect explanation, thus creating different scores for both pairs. Let's ask the three ritual questions : 1) Was there an infraction ? Yes. 2) Were N/S damaged by the infraction ? Possibly, and give them the benefit of the doubt. 3) Did N/S contribute to their bad score - I'd rule yes. So I would award adjusted score to E/W of +140, and the N/S score shouldn't necessarily be -140. It could be -800 (if their bidding was found to be really absurd) or perhaps a compound of both scores. And it would be fair : - had E/W explained corretly, it is not very probable that North would have bid again (his argument seems correct), so E/W would have scored +140 ; - N/S contributed to their -800, so they should score part of it. A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 31 03:16:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9UGG1T01548 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 03:16:01 +1100 (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 e9UGFnt01544 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 03:15:50 +1100 (EST) Received: by xion.spase.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <4YTR55SS>; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:56:36 +0100 Message-ID: From: Martin Sinot To: Bridge Laws Subject: RE: [BLML] HUM question Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:56:23 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner wrote: >At 08:14 29/10/00 +1030, MM Rosa wrote: >>Hi all! >> >>Do HUM regulations apply only to openings or is there some other set of >>rules that regulates what can and cannot be used after more or less >>natural opening bids? >> >>Say I would like to play inverted major suit responses after 1C/D (better >>minor), so 1H would show 4+S and 1S would show 4+H. >> >>Is that legal? > >AG : HUM regulations do not apply to anything but opening bids ; BSC apply >to opening bids and overcalls ; a response might only be classified red >(thus being allowed in most top-level events). >Yes, your idea of inverting majors (or responding in transfer, eg 1C-1D = >H, 1C-1H = S, 1C-1S = no major) would be red. > >To the Dutchmen : please note this is not the same as the Dutch 'red >sticker', which is akin to the international BSC. > > Alain. Red sticker doesn't exist anymore in the Netherlands; starting September 2000 the NBB uses the WBF rules, which means HUM/BSC. As far as I know, no other system regulations are used in the Netherlands, hence the above convention is perfectly legal. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 31 03:23:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9UGNk001609 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 03:23:46 +1100 (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 e9UGNet01605 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 03:23:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-251.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.251]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA01442 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 17:23:35 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <39FD69EE.F73632FA@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 13:30:38 +0100 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] 30 minutes correction period Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk We all know about the 30 minutes, which the SO can change to some other time. But where specifically does it say that no director call is possible after those 30 minutes ? Or for that matter, where does it say that a director call is possible within those 30 minutes ? I was called on saturday, 29 minutes after the end of the match, to tell me that they had written down (and agreed) a score of -300 in 3NT, but they had actually made 7 tricks. I had to write to the opponents, who had meanwhile returned home, to ask for their comments. I'm assuming that the score can be changed, but where does it say so? I mean apart from L79B, which only deals with end of the round - no change NEED be given - this is a clear case and I expect opponents to agree that the play went as described. What if they had called me 31 minutes after the end of play ? Ooops. Herman, RTFLB. Found it. Am I allowed to leave it as a quiz ? -- 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 Oct 31 03:55:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9UGsOD01648 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 03:54:24 +1100 (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 e9UGsBt01637 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 03:54:12 +1100 (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 13qICF-000FHH-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:54:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:52:52 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] 30 minutes correction period References: <39FD69EE.F73632FA@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <39FD69EE.F73632FA@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <39FD69EE.F73632FA@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >We all know about the 30 minutes, which the SO can change to >some other time. > >But where specifically does it say that no director call is >possible after those 30 minutes ? >Or for that matter, where does it say that a director call >is possible within those 30 minutes ? > >I was called on saturday, 29 minutes after the end of the >match, to tell me that they had written down (and agreed) a >score of -300 in 3NT, but they had actually made 7 tricks. > You are in time. >I had to write to the opponents, who had meanwhile returned >home, to ask for their comments. > >I'm assuming that the score can be changed, but where does >it say so? >I mean apart from L79B, which only deals with end of the >round - no change NEED be given - this is a clear case and I >expect opponents to agree that the play went as described. > >What if they had called me 31 minutes after the end of play >? You are out of time. > >Ooops. > >Herman, RTFLB. > >Found it. > >Am I allowed to leave it as a quiz ? > John (MadDog) Probst . ! -^- fax 20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road /|__. \:/ ChienFou on okb London E3 4PA / @ __) -|- john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 /\ --^ | 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 Oct 31 03:55:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9UGsOn01647 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 03:54:24 +1100 (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 e9UGsEt01639 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 03:54:15 +1100 (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 13qICF-000FHG-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:54:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:51:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 4 References: <200010301413.JAA10779@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200010301413.JAA10779@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 <200010301413.JAA10779@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes snip > >By the way, I've been disqualified from an event myself. My partner >was a good player from England, but he didn't have enough (any?) ACBL >master points to be eligible for the event. (It was a "Master's >Pairs," and you needed a _minimum_ number of points to be eligible to >enter.) The TD, on hearing the facts, allowed us to enter, but the >Memphis computer disqualified us and took away master points we won. This amuses me. Kojak won't let me play in the NLM pairs at Wiesbaden. I have to play the LM Pairs. I've only got 105 ACBL points (including 50 Gold) (100 more than DWS however)!! John (MadDog) Probst . ! -^- fax 20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road /|__. \:/ ChienFou on okb London E3 4PA / @ __) -|- john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 /\ --^ | 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 Oct 31 04:05:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9UH5a301687 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 04:05:36 +1100 (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 e9UH5Tt01683 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 04:05:30 +1100 (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 JAA11492; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:05:23 -0800 Message-Id: <200010301705.JAA11492@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "bridge-laws" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 29 Oct 2000 16:17:08 PST." <009f01c041be$a6065b40$6a053dd4@default> Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:05:23 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ben Schelen wrote: > > Michael wrote: > > > > > >Yes, I can dispute this, and already have. You're suggesting a tool > > > >that says, "Partner, I doubt that allowing the opponents to play > > > >undoubled is a good idea, and that if you either save or double, > > > >depending on which one you think is right, we will probably get a > > > >better score." As I said previously, I don't think there is any hand > > > >that could use such a tool. > > > > > > Then allow me to introduce you to the Forcing Pass. It conveys > > virtually > > > this identical message: "Partner, I'm sure that defending this > > contract > > > undoubled is not our best spot. Double or continue, but do not pass." > > Now I > > > agree that it is not _exactly_ the same, as more information is > > present in > > > the Forcing Pass, but it is not so very different. And thousands of > > players > > > use this very treatment every day, quite legally. Of course thousands > > more > > > use the "quasi-forcing" pass like the one we have been discussing, > > although > > > I am not so sure about its legality. > > > > This isn't quite what Adam meant, I don't think. A forcing pass does not > > mean "save or double", for (as Adam rightly says), nothing could > > sensibly mean that. A forcing pass means "bid higher to make, or > > double", which is not the same thing at all. > > According to The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge it is situation (1) > Situation (2) is: The opportunity for a sacrifice has arisen. A forcing pass > denotes the desire to sacrifice, and asks partner to do so if he cannot > double the opponents, and defeat their contract. Even so, a hand that qualifies for a Situation (2) forcing pass is still very different from the kind of hand we're talking about. I'm not sure what the Encyclopedia says or what it means, but it seems to me that a hand that would make this kind of pass is basically save-oriented, probably with little contribution to the defense, but in a situation where partner may have a trump stack and enough to beat the contract on his own, so that the hand making the forcing pass doesn't want to save unilaterally. (If I'm wrong about this, someone who's intimately familiar with this sort of forcing pass will have to correct me.) Thus, this is a ONE-DIRECTIONAL hand that suggests that saving would work better than passing---not really a hand that suggests that "either saving or doubling would work better than passing". If partner doubles anyway, he's doing it on his own hand. I believe that, once you get past the initial appearance of similarity, this situation is essentially unrelated to the hesitation that's causing the problem. -- 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 Oct 31 05:50:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9UInt401880 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 05:49:55 +1100 (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 (f257.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.30]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9UInot01876 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 05:49:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 10:49:42 -0800 Received: from 134.134.248.28 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 18:49:42 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.28] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 4 Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 10:49:42 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Oct 2000 18:49:42.0668 (UTC) FILETIME=[2A35D4C0:01C042A2] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >In article <200010301413.JAA10779@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner > writes > >By the way, I've been disqualified from an event myself. My partner > >was a good player from England, but he didn't have enough (any?) ACBL > >master points to be eligible for the event. (It was a "Master's > >Pairs," and you needed a _minimum_ number of points to be eligible to > >enter.) The TD, on hearing the facts, allowed us to enter, but the > >Memphis computer disqualified us and took away master points we won. > >This amuses me. Kojak won't let me play in the NLM pairs at Wiesbaden. I >have to play the LM Pairs. I've only got 105 ACBL points (including 50 >Gold) (100 more than DWS however)!! He knows the regulations and it's DIC's option. (http://www.acbl.org/regulations/pts&rank.htm) The DIC of an ACBL sanctioned tournament may require an ACBL member to enter a Flight, Strat, or Bracket above that dictated by his ACBL masterpoint holding if the member is deemed to have equivalent bridge experience. The DIC may require a non-member to enter a Flight, Strat or Bracket equivalent to that non-members past bridge experience. The DIC may require any entrant who is a member of another NCBO to play in Flight A if a lower status is not confirmed by the other NCBO. Units and Districts have the same authority regarding NAOP and GNT participation at any level under their jurisdiction. (Board of Directors - November, 1998) Or if you've played for your country at a WBF event, you can only enter the top strata in ACBL events. -Todd (You wanted to play the NLM pairs?) _________________________________________________________________________ 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 Oct 31 06:30:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9UJUN901936 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 06:30:23 +1100 (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 e9UJUGt01932 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 06:30:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot06.domain1.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id fa466315 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 05:29:30 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-211-141.tmns.net.au ([203.54.211.141]) by mail1.bigpond.com (Claudes-Delicate-MailRouter V2.9c 1/1555916); 31 Oct 2000 05:29:30 Message-ID: <011d01c042a7$82df0740$75d336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] 30 minutes correction period Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 06:27:19 +1100 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 still want to do Hermasn's quiz, do not read on. Herman de Wael wrote: >We all know about the 30 minutes, which the SO can >change to some other time. > >But where specifically does it say that no director call is >possible after those 30 minutes ? >.................... >What if they had called me 31 minutes after the end of play >.................... >Am I allowed to leave it as a quiz ? Law 81C6? By "after the end of play", you presumably mean "after the scores have been made available for inspection". A further question - in Law 82C the Director "shall" correct a Director's Error, but does Law 81C6 overrule Law 82C if the Director discovers his error 31 minutes after the scores have been posted? 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 Oct 31 06:42:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9UJgAJ01971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 06:42:10 +1100 (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 e9UJg4t01967 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 06:42:05 +1100 (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 e9UJg0l32016 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 14:42:01 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20001030143615.00b26b50@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, 30 Oct 2000 14:41:36 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001030163655.007b9100@pop.ulb.ac.be> 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 10:36 AM 10/30/00, alain wrote: >Let's ask the three ritual questions : > >1) Was there an infraction ? Yes. >2) Were N/S damaged by the infraction ? Possibly, and give them the >benefit >of the doubt. >3) Did N/S contribute to their bad score - I'd rule yes. >So I would award adjusted score to E/W of +140, and the N/S score >shouldn't >necessarily be -140. It could be >-800 (if their bidding was found to be really absurd) or perhaps a >compound >of both scores. > >And it would be fair : >- had E/W explained corretly, it is not very probable that North would >have >bid again (his argument seems correct), so E/W would have scored +140 ; >- N/S contributed to their -800, so they should score part of it. I take exception to Alain's question #3. It should be: ACBL: Was N-S's bad score the result of their making an egregious error? WBF: Was N-S's bad score the the result of their taking a wild, irrational or gambling action? As Alain phrases it, it gives credence to the notion that any less than perfect play by the NOS should affect the adjudication. It should not, unless it was so off the wall as to qualify as an "egregious error" or as a "wild, irrational or gambling action". 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 Oct 31 11:07:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9V05U302440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 11:05:30 +1100 (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 e9V05Nt02435 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 11:05:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis18.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.18]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.1999.06.13.00.20) with ESMTP id <0G3000JQKVQ6X8@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 07:39:44 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 07:39:41 +0200 From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Two Aces In-reply-to: X-Sender: Richard.Bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <5.0.0.25.0.20001026073655.00a004f0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 15:06 25.10.2000 -0700, Todd Zimnoch wrote: >>From: Richard Bley >>>Pass is a LA. And pass is unsuitable after the hesitation. >>>Look at it at this way: >>>Say there are 100 ypes of hand which partner can have (hunderd is easiest >>>to explain) >>>This is the line >>>defensive oriented hands - offensive hands >>>1 10 20 30 40 50 ... 100 >>> >>>They are all (say equal to make it easy) possible. After the hesitation >>>pard doesnt have the hands from, say: >>>11-80 what leave are >>>1-10 and 81-100. (personal oppinion) >>> >>>say that with 1-12 double is correct and with 75-100 it is correct to >>>bid on. > > This doesn't jive with me. If I held a hand that was so clearly in > favor of offense or defense, I wouldn't pass to let my partner decide. I > have enough information to make that decision myself. After the slow > pass, the ranges 1-10 and 81-100 are eliminated leaving the 11-80 range. So you say, pard is just thinking about nothing? See what I said: Hands partner can (should have said: still) have. That means 1-100 hands in which partner has his bids. If he bids himself he has say: -20 - 0 or 101-120. These hands are not what partner can have. Sorry if I made unclear statements. Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 31 11:07:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9V05R702437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 11:05:27 +1100 (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 e9V05Jt02431 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 11:05:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis239.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.239]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.1999.06.13.00.20) with ESMTP id <0G2X00K2FUIPTU@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 16:20:51 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 16:20:47 +0200 From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces In-reply-to: <003501c03d92$00433d20$e85408c3@dodona> X-Sender: Richard.Bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de To: bridge-laws Message-id: <5.0.0.25.0.20001024161203.009fd4d0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <02cd01c03d41$5aac8c40$87d436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:52 24.10.2000 +0100, Grattan Endicott wrote: >Grattan Endicott <=> >"Justice must not only be seen to be done but >has to be seen to be believed." (Beachcomber) >==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+== >----- Original Message ----- >From: Peter Gill >To: BLML >Sent: Monday, October 23, 2000 11:34 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Two Aces > > > > > > Hirsch Davis wrote: > > >>Does the hesitation reveal any more information than that > > >>partner needed time to digest this unexpected leap into slam? > > > > I think that's what EW meant by "East's long trance was > > understandable" - that the 6H bid took East by surprise and > > it took him almost a minute to work out not to double with > > his two aces because the 6H bidder probably had a void. > > > > Peter Gill > > Australia. > > >+=+ Indeed? Do we then judge that West is >capable of recognizing that East has some >such problem? If so, does it detract at all >from the general circumstance that if West >has UI the least suggested action is Pass, >if Pass is a LA? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Pass is a LA. And pass is unsuitable after the hesitation. Look at it at this way: Say there are 100 ypes of hand which partner can have (hunderd is easiest to explain) This is the line defensive oriented hands - offensive hands 1 10 20 30 40 50 ... 100 They are all (say equal to make it easy) possible. After the hesitation pard doesnt have the hands from, say: 11-80 what leave are 1-10 and 81-100. (personal oppinion) say that with 1-12 double is correct and with 75-100 it is correct to bid on. Before the hesitation it had a 25% chance (75-100) that bidding on was correct. After the hesitation it is 2/3 of all remaining cases. So bidding on is a LA which is more attractive after the hesitation. And yes doubling is the same problem (33% instead of 10%) and would be penalized either. So Pass is the only correct bid. So I agree here with Grattan and I agree with the american approach (the numbers are probably wrong here, but hopefully I could myself make understanding despite this is so complicated) Cheers Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 31 12:09:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9V18Kj02621 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:08:20 +1100 (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 e9V18At02617 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:08:14 +1100 (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 13qPuF-00022u-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 01:08:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 01:00:49 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) 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 Ian D Crorie wrote: > >I post this because I thought the Appeals committee's decision was >a poor one (despite the fact that as North I benefitted from it) >but I could not find in the FLB things that I had thought were >there about when an Assigned Adjusted Score that doesn't balance >can be awarded. So comments sought. I sometimes wonder if we are getting confused as to when split scores may be given. Perhaps I might summarise. Note NOs = non-offenders, Os = offenders. [1] If a TD or AC gives a ruling under L12C2 there is a different basis for the score assigned to the NOs and to the Os. Normally this is because a result is deemed to be "at all probable" but not "likely". Example. N/S bid up to 4H but they misinform E/W who can make 6S. However, 6S is very unlikely to be bid, but it is just possible, if they are correctly informed. However, with correct information it is routine for E/W to reach 4S. Adjustment: N/S are the Os: they receive NS-1430, 6S= vE E/W are the NOs: they receive NS-680, 4S+2 vE [2] On some occasions the NOs take some action that is considered bad enough to break the causal link, and they do not get the benefit of an adjustment in consequence. Unfortunately, SOs do not agree on what to do next, and it is even inconsistent what to do next within an individual SO [see the ACBL case-books]. However, I believe the correct approach is for the Os to have their score adjusted accordingly, and the NOs to lose some of their redress. It is normal to give the NOs no redress in such cases: the wording of the CoP and certain other arguments suggest that there is a case for subtracting the amount of damage that was the consequence of their action. This is usually a very difficult line to follow. Considering the simple case, where the NOs do not get an adjustment, the question is what level of action snaps the causal link. The WBF standard is "irrational, wild or gambling action". The ACBL standard is "an egregious error". The EBU standard is "wild or gambling action". The ACBL approach is to make people "play Bridge" or lose their redress: the EBU approach is to only disallow redress when there is at least some suggestion of the double shot: the WBF approach appears to be a compromise between these two. Example. North bids 4S clearly based on UI from his partner rather than leaving it in 3S. 4S is cold. However, East makes a lunatic double, a dreadful opening lead, and lets through 4S*+1, Adjustment: N/S are the Os: they receive NS+170, 3S+1 vN E/W are the NOs: they receive NS+990, 4S*+1 vE [3] All this is separate from a "weighted" score under L12C3 where after an infraction a TD or AC gives a percentage of various scores. It is not impossible to combine weighted and split scores under [2] above though not under [1]: if the NOs are not permitted to get redress that is no bar to the Os' redress being in the form of a weighted score. Example. North bids 4S clearly based on UI from his partner rather than leaving it in 3S. 4S is cold. However, East makes a lunatic double, an unfortunate opening lead, and lets through 4S*+1, Adjustment: N/S are the Os: they receive 50% NS+200, 3S+2 vN + 50% NS+170, 3S+1 vN E/W are the NOs: they receive NS+990, 4S*+1 vE [4] In ordinary L12C3 situations Colker always and Burn sometimes [dependent on situation] want to adjust for the NOs using L12C3 to provide a weighted score, but to give the Os an adjustment under L12C2 so they get the worst of all scores that are "at all probable". Colker has argued that if L12C3 is to be introduced to the ACBL this ought to be the way it is done. Burn has argued that the EBU have mandated this as a method for L73F2 rulings. Example. N/S bid up to 4H but they misinform E/W who might make 6S. However, 6S is very unlikely to be bid, but it is just possible, if they are correctly informed. However, with correct information it is routine for E/W to reach 4S. Adjustment: N/S are the Os: they receive NS-1430, 6S= vE E/W are the NOs: they receive 50% NS-650, 4S+1 vE + 50% NS-680, 4S+2 vE [5] It is not unheard of for a TD to give the NOs redress while letting the Os keep the good score obtained at the table. There seems no basis in Law for this. Presumably it is meant as a Customer Relations exercise. cc Rich Colker Max Bavin Steve Barnfield -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango's birthday is on 11th November Emails to Nanki Poo got *fifty* emails on his birthday: Quango expects **more**! 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 Tue Oct 31 20:25:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9V9NV303618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 20:23:31 +1100 (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 e9V9NMt03614 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 20:23:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.120] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13qXdU-000DcJ-00; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 09:23:17 +0000 Message-ID: <003701c0431c$3207ef60$785908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20001030143615.00b26b50@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 09:21:42 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: 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 "Everything has been said already, but not everyone has said it. " - Stanislaw Lec. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ' ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 7:41 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) > At 10:36 AM 10/30/00, alain wrote: > > I take exception to Alain's question #3. It should be: > > ACBL: Was N-S's bad score the result of their making an egregious error? > > WBF: Was N-S's bad score the the result of their taking a wild, > irrational or gambling action? > > As Alain phrases it, it gives credence to the notion that any less than > perfect play by the NOS should affect the adjudication. It should not, > unless it was so off the wall as to qualify as an "egregious error" or > as a "wild, irrational or gambling action". > +=+ Two comments here: (1) for the record the EBL has adopted the WBF CoP and what goes for the WBF goes also for the EBL. (2) the WBF question should be put a little more accurately: "the result or in part the result of....". Technically the table result as it would have been without the irrational, wild or gambling action is adjusted and the actual margin, in imps or matchpoints, over that notional table result is not adjusted for the NOS. I agree absolutely with Eric that the criterion for non-adjustment, wholly or in part as the case may be, is a mountain higher than mere error. ~ 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 Oct 31 21:44:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9VAiEs03749 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 21:44:14 +1100 (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 e9VAi7t03745 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 21:44:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d173.iae.nl [212.61.3.173]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 63ADA20F35 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 11:44:01 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <000d01c04327$5be51820$ad033dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <39FD69EE.F73632FA@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] 30 minutes correction period Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 11:41:55 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk 29 minutes is less than 30 minutes, so within the correction period. Law 65D and Law79A and B must be applied. If both pairs agree as to the number of tricks -7 tricks- the director is allowed to change the score of one pair or of both pairs. There must be a juridical certainty; 31 minutes is too late. If not, what about 32 minutes? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 1:30 PM Subject: [BLML] 30 minutes correction period > We all know about the 30 minutes, which the SO can change to > some other time. > > But where specifically does it say that no director call is > possible after those 30 minutes ? > Or for that matter, where does it say that a director call > is possible within those 30 minutes ? > > I was called on saturday, 29 minutes after the end of the > match, to tell me that they had written down (and agreed) a > score of -300 in 3NT, but they had actually made 7 tricks. > > I had to write to the opponents, who had meanwhile returned > home, to ask for their comments. > > I'm assuming that the score can be changed, but where does > it say so? > I mean apart from L79B, which only deals with end of the > round - no change NEED be given - this is a clear case and I > expect opponents to agree that the play went as described. > > What if they had called me 31 minutes after the end of play > ? > > Ooops. > > Herman, RTFLB. > > Found it. > > Am I allowed to leave it as a quiz ? > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 31 21:58:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9VAw2A03767 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 21:58:02 +1100 (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 e9VAvtt03763 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 21:57:56 +1100 (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 e9VAvhF20101; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 10:57:43 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id e9VAvgC01953; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 10:57:42 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 10:57:41 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA04411; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 10:57:39 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id KAA08544; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 10:57:38 GMT Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 10:57:38 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200010311057.KAA08544@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, hermandw@village.uunet.be Subject: Re: [BLML] 30 minutes correction period X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > But where specifically does it say that no director call is > possible after those 30 minutes ? > Or for that matter, where does it say that a director call > is possible within those 30 minutes ? L92B "The right to request or appeal a Director's ruling expires 30 minutes ^^^^^^^^^^ after the official score has been made available for inspection, unless the sponsoring organisation has specified a different time period." I guess L9 gives players the right to ask for a ruling. L92B limits that right (to be within the correction period). -- 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 Oct 31 22:11:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9VBB6403841 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 22:11:06 +1100 (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 e9VBAWt03832 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 22:10:33 +1100 (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 MAA01734; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:08:10 +0100 (MET) 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 MAA23544; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:10:07 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001031122048.007f9d20@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:20:48 +0100 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20001030143615.00b26b50@127.0.0.1> References: <3.0.6.32.20001030163655.007b9100@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 14:41 30/10/00 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > >I take exception to Alain's question #3. It should be: > >ACBL: Was N-S's bad score the result of their making an egregious error? > >WBF: Was N-S's bad score the the result of their taking a wild, >irrational or gambling action? > >As Alain phrases it, it gives credence to the notion that any less than >perfect play by the NOS should affect the adjudication. It should not, >unless it was so off the wall as to qualify as an "egregious error" or >as a "wild, irrational or gambling action". AG : okay, I phrased it badly. It should have been : "did the NOS make an egregious error that was at least partly responsible of their bad score". And I'd still say yes. 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 Oct 31 23:07:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9VC6VL03991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 23:06:31 +1100 (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 e9VC6Ot03986 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 23:06:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id NAA05754 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 13:06:20 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Oct 31 13:08:09 2000 +0100 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 <01JVZKXLWEP8000266@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 13:06:03 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 13:02:34 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 13:06:01 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) To: "'David Stevenson'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6FE@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 [4] In ordinary L12C3 situations Colker always and Burn sometimes > [dependent on situation] want to adjust for the NOs using L12C3 to > provide a weighted score, but to give the Os an adjustment under L12C2 > so they get the worst of all scores that are "at all > probable". Colker > has argued that if L12C3 is to be introduced to the ACBL this ought to > be the way it is done. Burn has argued that the EBU have > mandated this > as a method for L73F2 rulings. Put me at Burn's side. The main reason to use 12C3 is to prevent too comfortable scores for the non-offenders. The game should be won by good bridge, not by favorable TD-decisions. We do have less consideration for the offenders. Ian deserves a clearer answer than he got yet, in my opinion. Your intuition works well: the decision this AC took is one I never will take and should not be made by any AC ever. 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/